Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants (most commonly F508del).

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class II CFTR variant F508del is the commonest CF-causing variant (found in up to 90% of people with CF (pwCF)). The F508del variant lacks meaningful CFTR function - faulty protein is degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be to effect transepithelial salt transport. Corrective therapy could benefit many pwCF. This review evaluates single correctors (monotherapy) and any combination of correctors (most commonly lumacaftor, tezacaftor, elexacaftor, VX-659, VX-440 or VX-152) and a potentiator (e.g. ivacaftor) (dual and triple therapies). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors (with or without potentiators) on clinically important benefits and harms in pwCF of any age with class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane CF Trials Register (28 November 2022), reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries (3 December 2022). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to control in pwCF with class II mutations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged evidence certainty (GRADE); we contacted investigators for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs (4781 participants), lasting between 1 day and 48 weeks; an extension of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies provided additional 96-week safety data (1029 participants). We assessed eight monotherapy RCTs (344 participants) (4PBA, CPX, lumacaftor, cavosonstat and FDL169), 16 dual-therapy RCTs (2627 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) and 11 triple-therapy RCTs (1804 participants) (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-440-tezacaftor-ivacaftor; VX-152-tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Participants in 21 RCTs had the genotype F508del/F508del, in seven RCTs they had F508del/minimal function (MF), in one RCT F508del/gating genotypes, in one RCT either F508del/F508del genotypes or F508del/residual function genotypes, in one RCT either F508del/gating or F508del/residual function genotypes, and in three RCTs either F508del/F508del genotypes or F508del/MF genotypes. Risk of bias judgements varied across different comparisons. Results from 16 RCTs may not be applicable to all pwCF due to age limits (e.g. adults only) or non-standard designs (converting from monotherapy to combination therapy). Monotherapy Investigators reported no deaths or clinically relevant improvements in quality of life (QoL). There was insufficient evidence to determine effects on lung function. No placebo-controlled monotherapy RCT demonstrated differences in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects (AEs); the clinical relevance of these events is difficult to assess due to their variety and few participants (all F508del/F508del). Dual therapy In a tezacaftor-ivacaftor group there was one death (deemed unrelated to the study drug). QoL scores (respiratory domain) favoured both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor therapy compared to placebo at all time points (moderate-certainty evidence). At six months, relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted improved with all dual combination therapies compared to placebo (high- to moderate-certainty evidence). More pwCF reported early transient breathlessness with lumacaftor-ivacaftor (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 99% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.83; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence). Over 120 weeks (initial study period and follow-up), systolic blood pressure rose by 5.1 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 4.1 mmHg with twice-daily 400 mg lumacaftor-ivacaftor (80 participants). The tezacaftor-ivacaftor RCTs did not report these adverse effects. Pulmonary exacerbation rates decreased in pwCF receiving additional therapies to ivacaftor compared to placebo (all moderate-certainty evidence): lumacaftor 600 mg (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 739 participants); lumacaftor 400 mg (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 740 participants); and tezacaftor (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89; 1 study, 506 participants). Triple therapy No study reported any deaths (high-certainty evidence). All other evidence was low- to moderate-certainty. QoL respiratory domain scores probably improved with triple therapy compared to control at six months (six studies). There was probably a greater relative and absolute change in FEV1 % predicted with triple therapy (four studies each across all combinations). The absolute change in FEV1 % predicted was probably greater for F508del/MF participants taking elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor compared to placebo (mean difference 14.30, 95% CI 12.76 to 15.84; 1 study, 403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with similar results for other drug combinations and genotypes. There was little or no difference in adverse events between triple therapy and control (10 studies). No study reported time to next pulmonary exacerbation, but fewer F508del/F508del participants experienced a pulmonary exacerbation with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor at four weeks (OR 0.17, 99% CI 0.06 to 0.45; 1 study, 175 participants) and 24 weeks (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.60; 1 study, 405 participants); similar results were seen across other triple therapy and genotype combinations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of clinically important effects from corrector monotherapy in pwCF with F508del/F508del. Additional data in this review reduced the evidence for efficacy of dual therapy; these agents can no longer be considered as standard therapy. Their use may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances (e.g. if triple therapy is not tolerated or due to age). Both dual therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor) result in similar small improvements in QoL and respiratory function with lower pulmonary exacerbation rates. While the effect sizes for QoL and FEV1 still favour treatment, they have reduced compared to our previous findings. Lumacaftor-ivacaftor was associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are lacking in children under 12 years. In this population, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns, but this should be balanced against the blood pressure increase and shortness of breath seen in longer-term adult data when considering lumacaftor-ivacaftor. Data from triple therapy trials demonstrate improvements in several key outcomes, including FEV1 and QoL. There is probably little or no difference in adverse events for triple therapy (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-440-tezacaftor-ivacaftor; VX-152-tezacaftor-ivacaftor) in pwCF with one or two F508del variants aged 12 years or older (moderate-certainty evidence). Further RCTs are required in children under 12 years and those with more severe lung disease.

Prognosis of adults and children following a first unprovoked seizure.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is clinically defined as two or more unprovoked epileptic seizures more than 24 hours apart. Given that, a diagnosis of epilepsy can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, it is imperative that clinicians (and people with seizures and their relatives) have access to accurate and reliable prognostic estimates, to guide clinical practice on the risks of developing further unprovoked seizures (and by definition, a diagnosis of epilepsy) following single unprovoked epileptic seizure. OBJECTIVES: 1. To provide an accurate estimate of the proportion of individuals going on to have further unprovoked seizures at subsequent time points following a single unprovoked epileptic seizure (or cluster of epileptic seizures within a 24-hour period, or a first episode of status epilepticus), of any seizure type (overall prognosis). 2. To evaluate the mortality rate following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 19 September 2019 and again on 30 March 2021, with no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March 29, 2021), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. In MEDLINE (Ovid) the coverage end date always lags a few days behind the search date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies, both retrospective and prospective, of all age groups (except those in the neonatal period (< 1 month of age)), of people with a single unprovoked seizure, followed up for a minimum of six months, with no upper limit of follow-up, with the study end point being seizure recurrence, death, or loss to follow-up. To be included, studies must have included at least 30 participants. We excluded studies that involved people with seizures that occur as a result of an acute precipitant or provoking factor, or in close temporal proximity to an acute neurological insult, since these are not considered epileptic in aetiology (acute symptomatic seizures). We also excluded people with situational seizures, such as febrile convulsions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted the initial screening of titles and abstracts identified through the electronic searches, and removed non-relevant articles. We obtained the full-text articles of all remaining potentially relevant studies, or those whose relevance could not be determined from the abstract alone and two authors independently assessed for eligibility. All disagreements were resolved through discussion with no need to defer to a third review author. We extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form based on the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematicreviews of prediction modelling studies (CHARMS). Two review authors then appraised the included studies, using a standardised approach based on the quality in prognostic studies (QUIPS) tool, which was adapted for overall prognosis (seizure recurrence). We conducted a meta-analysis using Review Manager 2014, with a random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis model, which accounted for any between-study heterogeneity in the prognostic effect. We then summarised the meta-analysis by the pooled estimate (the average prognostic factor effect), its 95% confidence interval (CI), the estimates of I² and Tau² (heterogeneity), and a 95% prediction interval for the prognostic effect in a single population at three various time points, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the ages of the cohorts included; studies involving all ages, studies that recruited adult only and those that were purely paediatric. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies (involving 54 cohorts), with a total of 12,160 participants (median 147, range 31 to 1443), met the inclusion criteria for the review. Of the 58 studies, 26 studies were paediatric studies, 16 were adult and the remaining 16 studies were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. Most included studies had a cohort study design with two case-control studies and one nested case-control study. Thirty-two studies (29 cohorts) reported a prospective longitudinal design whilst 15 studies had a retrospective design whilst the remaining studies were randomised controlled trials. Nine of the studies included presented mortality data following a first unprovoked seizure. For a mortality study to be included, a proportional mortality ratio (PMR) or a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) had to be given at a specific time point following a first unprovoked seizure. To be included in the meta-analysis a study had to present clear seizure recurrence data at 6 months, 12 months or 24 months. Forty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which 23 were paediatric, 13 were adult, and 10 were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. A meta-analysis was performed at three time points; six months, one year and two years for all ages combined, paediatric and adult studies, respectively. We found an estimated overall seizure recurrence of all included studies at six months of 27% (95% CI 24% to 31%), 36% (95% CI 33% to 40%) at one year and 43% (95% CI 37% to 44%) at two years, with slightly lower estimates for adult subgroup analysis and slightly higher estimates for paediatric subgroup analysis. It was not possible to provide a summary estimate of the risk of seizure recurrence beyond these time points as most of the included studies were of short follow-up and too few studies presented recurrence rates at a single time point beyond two years. The evidence presented was found to be of moderate certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of the data (moderate-certainty of evidence), mainly relating to clinical and methodological heterogeneity we have provided summary estimates for the likely risk of seizure recurrence at six months, one year and two years for both children and adults. This provides information that is likely to be useful for the clinician counselling patients (or their parents) on the probable risk of further seizures in the short-term whilst acknowledging the paucity of long-term recurrence data, particularly beyond 10 years.

Prebiotics for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multisystem disease; the importance of growth and nutritional status is well established given their implications for lung function and overall survivability. Furthermore, it has been established that intestinal microbial imbalance and inflammation are present in people with CF. Oral prebiotics are commercially available substrates that are selectively utilised by host intestinal micro-organisms and may improve both intestinal and overall health. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prebiotics for improving health outcomes in children and adults with CF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 19 October 2022. We also searched PubMed and online trials registries. Date of last search: 13 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the efficacy of prebiotics in children and adults with CF. We planned to only include the first treatment period from cross-over RCTs, regardless of washout period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We did not identify any relevant trials. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any relevant trials for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review did not find any evidence for the use of prebiotics in people with CF. Until such evidence is available, it is reasonable for clinicians to follow any local guidelines and to discuss the use of dietary prebiotics with their patients. Large and robust RCTs assessing the dietary prebiotics of inulin or galacto-oligosaccharides or fructo-oligosaccharides, or any combination of these, are needed. Such studies should be of at least 12 months in duration and assess outcomes such as growth and nutrition, gastrointestinal symptoms, pulmonary exacerbations, lung function, inflammatory biomarkers, hospitalisations, intestinal microbial profiling, and faecal short-chain fatty acids. Trials should include both children and adults and aim to be adequately powered to allow for subgroup analysis by age.

Hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) for sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the most common inherited diseases worldwide. It is associated with lifelong morbidity and a reduced life expectancy. Hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide), an oral chemotherapeutic drug, ameliorates some of the clinical problems of SCD, in particular that of pain, by raising foetal haemoglobin (HbF). This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to determine through a review of randomised or quasi-randomised studies whether the use of hydroxyurea in people with SCD alters the pattern of acute events, including pain; prevents, delays or reverses organ dysfunction; alters mortality and quality of life; or is associated with adverse effects. In addition, we hoped to assess whether the response to hydroxyurea in SCD varies with the type of SCD, age of the individual, duration and dose of treatment, and healthcare setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries. The date of the most recent search was 17 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs and quasi-RCTs), of one month or longer, comparing hydroxyurea with placebo or standard therapy in people  with SCD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs recruiting 1104 adults and children with SCD (haemoglobin SS (HbSS), haemoglobin SC (HbSC) or haemoglobin Sߺthalassaemia (HbSߺthal) genotypes). Studies lasted from six to 30 months. We judged the quality of the evidence for the first two comparisons below as moderate to low as the studies contributing to these comparisons were mostly large and well-designed (and at low risk of bias); however, the evidence was limited and imprecise for some outcomes such as quality of life, deaths during the studies and adverse events, and the results are applicable only to individuals with HbSS and HbSߺthal genotypes. We judged the quality of the evidence for the third and fourth comparisons to be very low due to the limited number of participants, the lack of statistical power (both studies were terminated early with approximately only 20% of their target sample size recruited) and the lack of applicability to all age groups and genotypes. Hydroxyurea versus placebo Five studies (784 adults and children with HbSS or HbSߺthal) compared hydroxyurea to placebo; four recruited individuals with only severe disease and one recruited individuals with all disease severities. Hydroxyurea probably improves pain alteration (using measures such as pain crisis frequency, duration, intensity, hospital admissions and opoid use) and life-threatening illness, but we found no difference in death rates (10 deaths occurred during the studies, but the rates did not differ by treatment group) (all moderate-quality evidence). Hydroxyurea may improve measures of HbF (low-quality evidence) and probably decreases neutrophil counts (moderate-quality evidence). There were no consistent differences in terms of quality of life and adverse events (including serious or life-threatening events) (low-quality evidence). There were fewer occurrences of acute chest syndrome and blood transfusions in the hydroxyurea groups.  Hydroxyurea and phlebotomy versus transfusion and chelation Two studies (254 children with HbSS or HbSߺthal also with risk of primary or secondary stroke) contributed to this comparison. There were no consistent differences in terms of pain alteration, death or adverse events (low-quality evidence) or life-threatening illness (moderate-quality evidence). Hydroxyurea with phlebotomy probably increased HbF and decreased neutrophil counts (moderate-quality evidence), but there were more occurrences of acute chest syndrome and infections. Quality of life was not reported. In the primary prevention study, no strokes occurred in either treatment group but in the secondary prevention study, seven strokes occurred in the hydroxyurea and phlebotomy group (none in the transfusion and chelation group) and the study was terminated early.  Hydroxyurea versus observation One study (22 children with HbSS or HbSߺthal also at risk of stoke) compared hydroxyurea to observation. Pain alteration and quality of life were not reported. There were no differences in life-threatening illness, death (no deaths reported in either group) or adverse events (very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if hydroxyurea improves HbF or decreases neutrophil counts (very low-quality evidence). Treatment regimens with and without hydroxyurea One study (44 adults and children with HbSC) compared treatment regimens with and without hydroxyurea. Pain alteration, life-threatening illness and quality of life were not reported. There were no differences in death rates (no deaths reported in either group), adverse events or neutrophil levels (very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if hydroxyurea improves HbF (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that hydroxyurea may be effective in decreasing the frequency of pain episodes and other acute complications in adults and children with sickle cell anaemia of HbSS or HbSߺthal genotypes and in preventing life-threatening neurological events in those with sickle cell anaemia at risk of primary stroke by maintaining transcranial Doppler velocities. However, there is still insufficient evidence on the long-term benefits of hydroxyurea, particularly with regard to preventing chronic complications of SCD, or recommending a standard dose or dose escalation to maximum tolerated dose. There is also insufficient evidence about the long-term risks of hydroxyurea, including its effects on fertility and reproduction. Evidence is also limited on the effects of hydroxyurea on individuals with the HbSC genotype. Future studies should be designed to address such uncertainties.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices. OBJECTIVES: To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Physical activity and exercise training in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (including exercise) may form an important part of regular care for people with cystic fibrosis (CF). This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical activity interventions on exercise capacity by peak oxygen uptake, lung function by forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and further important patient-relevant outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. The most recent search was on 3 March 2022. We also searched two ongoing trials registers: clinicaltrials.gov, most recently on 4 March 2022; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), most recently on 16 March 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions of any type and a minimum intervention duration of two weeks with conventional care (no physical activity intervention) in people with CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected RCTs for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 parallel RCTs (875 participants). The number of participants in the studies ranged from nine to 117, with a wide range of disease severity. The studies' age demographics varied: in two studies, all participants were adults; in 13 studies, participants were 18 years and younger; in one study, participants were 15 years and older; in one study, participants were 12 years and older; and seven studies included all age ranges. The active training programme lasted up to and including six months in 14 studies, and longer than six months in the remaining 10 studies. Of the 24 included studies, seven implemented a follow-up period (when supervision was withdrawn, but participants were still allowed to exercise) ranging from one to 12 months. Studies employed differing levels of supervision: in 12 studies, training was supervised; in 11 studies, it was partially supervised; and in one study, training was unsupervised. The quality of the included studies varied widely. This Cochrane Review shows that, in studies with an active training programme lasting over six months in people with CF, physical activity probably has a positive effect on exercise capacity when compared to no physical activity (usual care) (mean difference (MD) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 3.05; 6 RCTs, 348 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity is interpreted as small, although study results were heterogeneous. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted) (MD 2.41, 95% CI ‒0.49 to 5.31; 6 RCTs, 367 participants), HRQoL physical functioning (MD 2.19, 95% CI ‒3.42 to 7.80; 4 RCTs, 247 participants) and HRQoL respiratory domain (MD ‒0.05, 95% CI ‒3.61 to 3.51; 4 RCTs, 251 participants) at six months and longer (low-certainty evidence). One study (117 participants) reported no differences between the physical activity and control groups in the number of participants experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation by six months (incidence rate ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.94) or in the time to first exacerbation over 12 months (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80) (both high-certainty evidence); and no effects of physical activity on diabetic control (after 1 hour: MD ‒0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI ‒1.11 to 1.03; 67 participants; after 2 hours: MD ‒0.44 mmol/L, 95% CI ‒1.43 to 0.55; 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no difference between groups in the number of adverse events over six months (odds ratio 6.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 53.40; 2 RCTs, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). For other time points (up to and including six months and during a follow-up period with no active intervention), the effects of physical activity versus control were similar to those reported for the outcomes above. However, only three out of seven studies adding a follow-up period with no active intervention (ranging between one and 12 months) reported on the primary outcomes of changes in exercise capacity and lung function, and one on HRQoL. These data must be interpreted with caution. Altogether, given the heterogeneity of effects across studies, the wide variation in study quality and lack of information on clinically meaningful changes for several outcome measures, we consider the overall certainty of evidence on the effects of physical activity interventions on exercise capacity, lung function and HRQoL to be low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity interventions for six months and longer likely improve exercise capacity when compared to no training (moderate-certainty evidence). Current evidence shows little or no effect on lung function and HRQoL (low-certainty evidence). Over recent decades, physical activity has gained increasing interest and is already part of multidisciplinary care offered to most people with CF. Adverse effects of physical activity appear rare and there is no reason to actively discourage regular physical activity and exercise. The benefits of including physical activity in an individual's regular care may be influenced by the type and duration of the activity programme as well as individual preferences for and barriers to physical activity. Further high-quality and sufficiently-sized studies are needed to comprehensively assess the benefits of physical activity and exercise in people with CF, particularly in the new era of CF medicine.

Treatments for seizures in catamenial (menstrual-related) epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I2 = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I2 = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.

Antidepressants for people with epilepsy and depression.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT.  We rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables. More than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms.  Seizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning. Two RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs.  There are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression. RCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.

Prophylactic drug management for febrile seizures in children.

BACKGROUND: Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%. Rapid-acting antiepileptics and antipyretics given during subsequent fever episodes have been used to avoid the adverse effects of continuous antiepileptic drugs. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate primarily the effectiveness and safety of antiepileptic and antipyretic drugs used prophylactically to treat children with febrile seizures; and also to evaluate any other drug intervention where there is a sound biological rationale for its use. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 3 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 January 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We imposed no language restrictions and contacted researchers to identify continuing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised participant allocation that compared the use of antiepileptics, antipyretics or recognised Central Nervous System active agents with each other, placebo, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the original review, two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to select trials for inclusion and extracted the predefined relevant data, recording methods for randomisation, blinding, and exclusions. For the 2016 update, a third review author checked all original inclusions, data analyses, and updated the search. For the 2020 update, one review author updated the search and performed the data analysis following a peer-review process with the original review authors. We assessed seizure recurrence at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 months, and where data were available at age 5 to 6 years along with recorded adverse effects. We evaluated the presence of publication bias using funnel plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 articles describing 32 randomised trials, with 4431 randomised participants used in the analysis of this review. We analysed 15 interventions of continuous or intermittent prophylaxis and their control treatments. Methodological quality was moderate to poor in most studies. We found no significant benefit for intermittent phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate, pyridoxine, ibuprofen, or zinc sulfate versus placebo or no treatment; nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, paracetamol, or placebo; nor for continuous phenobarbital versus diazepam, intermittent rectal diazepam versus intermittent valproate, or oral diazepam versus clobazam. There was a significant reduction of recurrent febrile seizures with intermittent diazepam versus placebo or no treatment at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85; 6 studies, 1151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; 8 studies, 1416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 18 months (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence), 24 months (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 4 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence), 36 months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 1 study, 139 participants; low-certainty evidence), 48 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 study, 110 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no benefit at 60 to 72 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.31; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus placebo or no treatment reduced seizures at six months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 6 studies, 833 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; 7 studies, 807 participants; low-certainty evidence), and 24 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; 3 studies, 533 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not at 18 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; 2 studies, 264 participants) or 60 to 72 months follow-up (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.69; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Intermittent clobazam compared to placebo at six months resulted in a RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.64; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence), an effect found against an extremely high (83.3%) recurrence rate in the controls, a result that needs replication. When compared to intermittent diazepam, intermittent oral melatonin did not significantly reduce seizures at six months (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.15; 1 study, 60 participants; very-low certainty evidence). When compared to placebo, intermittent oral levetiracetam significantly reduced recurrent seizures at 12 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; 1 study, 115 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The recording of adverse effects was variable. Two studies reported lower comprehension scores in phenobarbital-treated children. Adverse effects were recorded in up to 30% of children in the phenobarbital-treated groups and 36% in benzodiazepine-treated groups. We found evidence of publication bias in the meta-analyses of comparisons for phenobarbital versus placebo (seven studies) at 12 months but not at six months (six studies); and valproate versus placebo (four studies) at 12 months. There were too few studies to identify publication bias for the other comparisons. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was low or very low. Methods of randomisation and allocation concealment often did not meet current standards, and 'treatment versus no treatment' was more commonly seen than 'treatment versus placebo', leading to obvious risks of bias.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found reduced recurrence rates for intermittent diazepam and continuous phenobarbital, with adverse effects in up to 30% of children. The apparent benefit for clobazam treatment in one trial needs to be replicated. Levetiracetam also shows benefit with a good safety profile; however, further study is required. Given the benign nature of recurrent febrile seizures, and the high prevalence of adverse effects of these drugs, parents and families should be supported with adequate contact details of medical services and information on recurrence, first aid management, and, most importantly, the benign nature of the phenomenon.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a highly prevalent neurological condition characterised by repeated unprovoked seizures with various aetiologies. Although antiepileptic medications produce clinical improvement in many individuals, nearly a third of individuals have drug-resistant epilepsy that carries significant morbidity and mortality, and even individuals who have clinical improvement from antiepileptic medications often report iatrogenic symptoms. There remains a need for non-invasive and more effective therapies for this population. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses electromagnetic coils to excite or inhibit neurons, with repetitive pulses at low-frequency producing an inhibitory effect that could conceivably reduce cortical excitability associated with epilepsy. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the use of TMS in individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy compared with other available treatments in reducing seizure frequency, improving quality of life, reducing epileptiform discharges, antiepileptic medication use, and side effects. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 2 June 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that were double-blinded, single-blinded, or unblinded, and placebo controlled, no treatment, or active controlled, which used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) without restriction of frequency, coil, duration or intensity on participants with drug-resistant epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted information from each trial including methodological data; participant demographics including baseline seizure frequency, type of epileptic drugs taken; intervention details and intervention groups for comparison; potential biases; and outcomes and time points, primarily change in seizure frequency or responder rates, as well as quality of life and epileptiform discharges, adverse effects, and changes in medication use. MAIN RESULTS: The original search revealed 274 records from the databases that after selection provided seven full-text relevant studies for inclusion. The latest search identified 179 new records from the databases that after evaluation against the inclusion and exclusion criteria provided one additional full-text relevant study. The eight included studies (241 participants) were all randomised trials; seven of the studies were blinded. Methodological and design information in the included studies was unclear, particularly relating to randomisation and allocation concealment methods. We were not able to combine the results of the trials in analysis due to differences in the studies' designs. For the current update, two of the eight studies analysed showed a statistically significant reduction in seizure rate from baseline (72% and 78.9% reduction of seizures per week from the baseline rate, respectively), whilst the other six studies showed no statistically significant difference in seizure frequency following rTMS treatment compared with controls (low-certainty evidence). One study assessed quality of life and found that more participants showed improvement in quality of life scores with active treatments compared to the sham treatment, but this only involved seven participants (very low-certainty evidence). Four studies evaluated our secondary endpoint of mean number of epileptic discharges, three of which showed a statistically significant reduction in discharges after active rTMS treatment. Adverse effects were uncommon in the studies and typically involved headache, dizziness, and tinnitus; however increased seizure frequency did occur in a small number of individuals. The included trials reported no significant changes in medication use. Overall the risk of bias was either low or unclear, and the certainty of the evidence was low to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we judged the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be low to very low. We found some evidence to suggest that rTMS is safe but some adverse events were experienced. The variability in technique and outcome reporting prevented meta-analysis, and the evidence for efficacy of rTMS for seizure reduction is still lacking, despite reasonable evidence that it is effective at reducing epileptiform discharges.

Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment, versus placebo, deferred, or no treatment for first unprovoked seizure.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2016. There is considerable disagreement about the risk of recurrence following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure. A decision about whether to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first seizure should be informed by information on the size of any reduction in risk of future seizures, the impact on long-term seizure remission, and the risk of adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the probability of seizure recurrence, seizure remission, mortality, and adverse effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment given immediately after the first seizure compared to controls (placebo, deferred treatment, or no treatment) in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to May 24, 2019) on 28 May 2019. There were no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that could be blinded or unblinded. People of any age with a first unprovoked seizure of any type. Included studies compared participants receiving immediate antiepileptic treatment versus those receiving deferred treatment, those assigned to placebo, and those untreated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion in the review and extracted data. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was classified in four categories according to the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event outcomes were expressed as Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Only one trial used a double-blind design, and the two largest studies were unblinded. Most of the recurrences were generalised tonic-clonic seizures, a major type of seizures that is easily recognised, which should reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias. MAIN RESULTS: After exclusion of irrelevant papers, six studies (eleven reports) were selected for inclusion. Individual participant data were available from the two largest studies for meta-analysis. Selection bias and attrition bias could not be excluded within the four smaller studies, but the two largest studies reported attrition rates and adequate methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. Only one small trial used a double-blind design and the other trials were unblinded; however, most of the recurrences were generalised tonic-clonic seizures, a type of seizure that is easily recognisable. Compared to controls, participants randomised to immediate treatment had a lower probability of relapse at one year (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1634 participants; high-certainty evidence), at five years (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a higher probability of an immediate five-year remission (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference between immediate treatment and control in terms of five-year remission at any time (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). Antiepileptic drugs did not affect overall mortality after a first seizure (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to deferred treatment, treatment of the first seizure was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.79; 2 studies, 1212 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to low for the association of higher risk of adverse events when treatment of the first seizure was compared to no treatment or placebo, (RR 14.50, 95% CI 1.93 to 108.76; 1 study; 118 participants) and (RR 4.91, 95% CI 1.10 to 21.93; 1 study, 228 participants) respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of the first unprovoked seizure reduces the risk of a subsequent seizure but does not affect the proportion of patients in remission in the long term. Antiepileptic drugs are associated with adverse events, and there is no evidence that they reduce mortality. In light of this review, the decision to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first unprovoked seizure should be individualised and based on patient preference, clinical, legal, and sociocultural factors.

Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants (most commonly F508del).

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class II CFTR variant F508del (found in up to 90% of people with CF (pwCF)) is the commonest CF-causing variant. The faulty protein is degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be to effect transepithelial salt transport. The F508del variant lacks meaningful CFTR function and corrective therapy could benefit many pwCF. Therapies in this review include single correctors and any combination of correctors and potentiators. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors (with or without potentiators) on clinically important benefits and harms in pwCF of any age with class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries. Most recent search: 14 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to control in pwCF with class II mutations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evidence quality (GRADE); we contacted investigators for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (2959 participants), lasting between 1 day and 24 weeks; an extension of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies provided additional 96-week safety data (1029 participants). We assessed eight monotherapy RCTs (344 participants) (4PBA, CPX, lumacaftor, cavosonstat and FDL169), six dual-therapy RCTs (1840 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) and five triple-therapy RCTs (775 participants) (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor or VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor); below we report only the data from elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor combination which proceeded to Phase 3 trials. In 14 RCTs participants had F508del/F508del genotypes, in three RCTs F508del/minimal function (MF) genotypes and in two RCTs both genotypes. Risk of bias judgements varied across different comparisons. Results from 11 RCTs may not be applicable to all pwCF due to age limits (e.g. adults only) or non-standard design (converting from monotherapy to combination therapy). Monotherapy Investigators reported no deaths or clinically-relevant improvements in quality of life (QoL). There was insufficient evidence to determine any important effects on lung function. No placebo-controlled monotherapy RCT demonstrated differences in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects (AEs); the clinical relevance of these events is difficult to assess with their variety and small number of participants (all F508del/F508del). Dual therapy Investigators reported no deaths (moderate- to high-quality evidence). QoL scores (respiratory domain) favoured both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor therapy compared to placebo at all time points. At six months lumacaftor 600 mg or 400 mg (both once daily) plus ivacaftor improved Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ) scores slightly compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 2.62 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 4.59); 1061 participants; high-quality evidence). A similar effect was observed for twice-daily lumacaftor (200 mg) plus ivacaftor (250 mg), but with low-quality evidence (MD 2.50 points (95% CI 0.10 to 5.10)). The mean increase in CFQ scores with twice-daily tezacaftor (100 mg) and ivacaftor (150 mg) was approximately five points (95% CI 3.20 to 7.00; 504 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At six months, the relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted improved with combination therapies compared to placebo by: 5.21% with once-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 3.61% to 6.80%; 504 participants; high-quality evidence); 2.40% with twice-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 0.40% to 4.40%; 204 participants; low-quality evidence); and 6.80% with tezacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 5.30 to 8.30%; 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence). More pwCF reported early transient breathlessness with lumacaftor-ivacaftor, odds ratio 2.05 (99% CI 1.10 to 3.83; 739 participants; high-quality evidence). Over 120 weeks (initial study period and follow-up) systolic blood pressure rose by 5.1 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 4.1 mmHg with twice-daily 400 mg lumacaftor-ivacaftor (80 participants; high-quality evidence). The tezacaftor-ivacaftor RCTs did not report these adverse effects. Pulmonary exacerbation rates decreased in pwCF receiving additional therapies to ivacaftor compared to placebo: lumacaftor 600 mg hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; 739 participants); lumacaftor 400 mg, HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; 740 participants); and tezacaftor, HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; 506 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Triple therapy Three RCTs of elexacaftor to tezacaftor-ivacaftor in pwCF (aged 12 years and older with either one or two F508del variants) reported no deaths (high-quality evidence). All other evidence was graded as moderate quality. In 403 participants with F508del/minimal function (MF) elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (MD 20.2 points (95% CI 16.2 to 24.2)) and absolute change in FEV1 (MD 14.3% predicted (95% CI 12.7 to 15.8)) compared to placebo at 24 weeks. At four weeks in 107 F508del/F508del participants, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (17.4 points (95% CI 11.9 to 22.9)) and absolute change in FEV1 (MD 10.0% predicted (95% CI 7.5 to 12.5)) compared to tezacaftor-ivacaftor. There was probably little or no difference in the number or severity of AEs between elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor and placebo or control (moderate-quality evidence). In 403 F508del/F508del participants, there was a longer time to protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor over 24 weeks (moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence that corrector monotherapy has clinically important effects in pwCF with F508del/F508del. Both dual therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor) result in similar improvements in QoL and respiratory function with lower pulmonary exacerbation rates. Lumacaftor-ivacaftor was associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are lacking in children under 12 years. In this population, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns; but this should be balanced against the blood pressure increase and shortness of breath seen in longer-term adult data when considering lumacaftor-ivacaftor. There is high-quality evidence of clinical efficacy with probably little or no difference in AEs for triple (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor) therapy in pwCF with one or two F508del variants aged 12 years or older. Further RCTs are required in children (under 12 years) and those with more severe respiratory function.

Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action is unknown. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed and it is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. This is an update of a previous review. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of last search: 12 December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (reported in 36 unique publications) were included with a total of 784 participants. Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from 12 days to six months, with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Five studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol) and the final study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. Two large studies had a similar parallel design and provided data for 600 participants, which could be pooled where data for a particular outcome and time point were available. The remaining studies had much smaller sample sizes (ranging from 22 to 95) and data could not be pooled due to differences in design, interventions and population. Pooled evidence from the two large parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the smaller studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. In all studies, there was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised; therefore, the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole. While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies. Pooling the large parallel studies comparing mannitol to control, up to and including six months, lung function (forced expiratory volume at one second) measured in both mL and % predicted was significantly improved in the mannitol group compared to the control group (moderate-quality evidence). Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non-users in these studies. In the smaller studies, statistically significant improvements in lung function were also observed in the mannitol groups compared to the non-respirable mannitol groups; however, we judged this evidence to be of low to very low quality. For the comparisons of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. It should be noted that the tool used to measure health-related quality of life was not designed to assess mucolytics and pooling of the age-appropriate tools (as done in some of the included studies) may not be valid so results were judged to be low to very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects in both treatment groups. Where rates of adverse events could be compared, statistically no significant differences were found between mannitol and control groups; although some of these events may have clinical relevance for people with CF. For the comparisons of mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa, very low-quality evidence from a 12-week cross-over study of 28 participants showed no statistically significant differences in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations. In terms of secondary outcomes of the review (pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalisations, symptoms, sputum microbiology), evidence provided by the included studies was more limited. For all comparisons, no consistent statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences were observed between mannitol and control treatments (including dornase alfa). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is low to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in quality of life for participants taking mannitol compared to control. This review provides very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.

Antiepileptic drugs as prophylaxis for postcraniotomy seizures.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.

Psychological interventions for people with hemophilia.

BACKGROUND: Managing hemophilia is challenging both in terms of medical treatment and its broad impact on many aspects of the individual's life, including self-perception. Several psychosocial issues are potentially relevant in the clinical management of hemophilia, including it being a chronic and incurable condition; e.g. people with hemophilia must adapt to optimally interact with peers and to practice sports - even choosing a sport represents an issue for perceived limitations, expectations and cultural influences on the individual and their family. People with hemophilia can react by denying their condition and its manifestations and not adhering to treatment. Due to the complexity of relationships surrounding genetic diseases, parents and relatives may have their own issues that contribute to making life easier or more difficult for the person with hemophilia. Anxiety, sadness and depression resulting in mental health disorders are reported in this population and may influence quality of life (QoL) depending on cultural background, religious beliefs, family support and other variables. OBJECTIVES: Primarily to assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies for improving the ability of people with hemophilia to cope with their chronic condition. SEARCH METHODS: We aimed to identify trials from the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, Embase and PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and trial registries. We searched reference lists of included publications. Most recent search of the Group's register: 13 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in people with hemophilia of any age or gender, type A or B, any severity, with or without inhibitors, with or without HIV or hepatitis C virus. All psychological interventions for promoting emotional, intellectual and spiritual wellness. Individual, group or family group therapy interventions were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were included (362 participants randomized, data from 264 participants available for analysis); six of parallel design and one a partial cross-over design. One multicenter trial was conducted in Canada; the remaining six were single centre undertaken in the UK, USA, Iran and in the Netherlands. All trials had a high risk of bias for participant blinding and use of patient-reported outcomes. Evidence was retrieved on four interventions: psycho-education (DVD plus information booklet versus information booklet alone; computerised learning versus no intervention); cognitive therapy (auto-hypnosis (self-hypnosis) versus control); and behavioural therapy (relaxation (progressive or self control) versus no treatment). We also aimed to assess psychodynamic therapy and systemic therapy, but no trials were identified. Heterogeneity of the outcome measures and measurements precluded meta-analyses. No trial reported the cost of the psychological intervention and family adjustment. DVD plus information booklet compared to information booklet alone One trial (108 participants) showed coping strategies may lower pre-contemplation scores and negative thoughts, mean difference (MD) -0.24 (95%CI -0.48 - 0.00, low-certainty evidence), however, other measures of coping strategies in the same trial suggest little or no difference between groups, e.g. contemplation, MD (-0.09, 95%CI -0.32 - 0.14, low-certainty evidence). The same trial measured QoL and showed little or no difference between treatment groups for the physical domain, MD 0.59 (95% CI -3.66 to 4.84, low-certainty evidence), but may improve scores in the mental health domain for those receiving the booklet plus DVD compared to booklet alone, MD (4.70, 95% CI 0.33 to 9.07, low-certainty evidence). Mood or personal well-being were not reported. Computerised learning compared to no intervention Two trials (57 participants) reported on interventions aimed at children and adolescents and their impact on promoting a sense of self-efficacy (primary outcome 'Mood and personal well-being'), but only one showed an increase, MD 7.46 (95%CI 3.21 to 11.71, 17 participants, very low-certainty evidence); the second did not report control group data. One trial (30 participants) showed the intervention did not improve self-efficacy in adults, but appropriate data could not be extracted. Two trials (47 participants) reported coping strategies; one only reported within-group differences from baseline, the second showed an increase from baseline in coping strategies in the Internet program group compared to the no intervention group (disease-specific knowledge, MD 2.45 (95% CI 0.89 to 4.01); self-management ability and transition readiness, MD 19.90 (95% CI 3.61 to 36.19; low-certainty evidence). One trial reported QoL but with insufficient information to calculate changes from baseline; no difference in post-treatment scores was seen between groups, MD -8.65, 95% CI -18.30 to 1.00, very low-certainty evidence). Auto-hypnosis (self-hypnosis) compared to control There were two older trials that reported on this intervention (50 participants) focusing mainly on the secondary outcome 'physical health'; only one trial reported the primary outcome 'mood and personal well-being' (only within-group differences in the treatment group). Coping strategies and QoL were not assessed in the trials. Relaxation (progressive or self control) compared to no treatment Only one trial (seven participants) from 1985, was included which focused on 'physical health' and did not report on any of our primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Not all of the seven included trials analysed the effects of the interventions on our primary outcomes (mood and personal well-being, coping strategies and QoL). Three trials were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s using techniques of auto-hypnosis or relaxation and, in accordance with the needs and therapeutic possibilities of the time, they focused on secondary outcomes, e.g. frequency of bleeding (physical health) and adherence to the intervention. The four newer trials assessed psycho-educational interventions all mediated by the use of technologies (DVD or computer) and often created according to age needs of the target group. In these cases, attention was shifted to our pre-defined primary outcomes. This review has identified low- and very low-certainty evidence, prompting caution in its interpretation. The major problem we encountered was the heterogeneity of trial designs, of interventions and of outcome measures used across the trials. We strongly suggest that researchers consider developing a core outcome set to streamline future research; randomization was proven to be safe and acceptable, and blinding should be considered for those assessing patient-reported outcomes.

Treatments for the prevention of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP).

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, published in 2016, Issue 7. Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is defined as sudden, unexpected, witnessed or unwitnessed, non-traumatic or non-drowning death of people with epilepsy, with or without evidence of a seizure, excluding documented status epilepticus and in whom postmortem examination does not reveal a structural or toxicological cause for death. SUDEP has a reported incidence of 1 to 2 per 1000 patient-years and represents the most common epilepsy-related cause of death. The presence and frequency of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), male sex, early age of seizure onset, duration of epilepsy, and polytherapy are all predictors of risk of SUDEP. The exact pathophysiology of SUDEP is currently unknown, although GTCS-induced cardiac, respiratory, and brainstem dysfunction appears likely. Appropriately chosen antiepileptic drug treatment can render around 70% of patients free of all seizures. However, around one-third will remain drug-resistant despite polytherapy. Continuing seizures place patients at risk of SUDEP, depression, and reduced quality of life. Preventative strategies for SUDEP include reducing the occurrence of GTCS by timely referral for presurgical evaluation in people with lesional epilepsy and advice on lifestyle measures; detecting cardiorespiratory distress through clinical observation and seizure, respiratory, and heart rate monitoring devices; preventing airway obstruction through nocturnal supervision and safety pillows; reducing central hypoventilation through physical stimulation and enhancing serotonergic mechanisms of respiratory regulation using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and reducing adenosine and endogenous opioid-induced brain and brainstem depression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions in preventing SUDEP in people with epilepsy by synthesising evidence from randomised controlled trials of interventions and cohort and case-control non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases without language restrictions: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 4 February 2019); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 February 2019); SCOPUS (1823 to 4 February 2019); PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 4 January 2019); CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 to 4 February 2019); ClinicalTrials.gov (5 February 2019); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 February 2019). We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted lead study authors for any relevant unpublished material. We identified any grey literature studies published in the last five years by searching: Zetoc database; ISI Proceedings; International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE) congress proceedings database; International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) congress proceedings database; abstract books of symposia and congresses, meeting abstracts, and research reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs; prospective non-randomised cohort controlled and uncontrolled studies; and case-control studies of adults and children with epilepsy receiving an intervention for the prevention of SUDEP. Types of interventions included: early versus delayed pre-surgical evaluation for lesional epilepsy; educational programmes; seizure-monitoring devices; safety pillows; nocturnal supervision; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); opiate antagonists; and adenosine antagonists. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We aimed to collect data on study design factors and participant demographics for included studies. The primary outcome of interest was the number of deaths from SUDEP. Secondary outcomes included: number of other deaths (unrelated to SUDEP); change in mean depression and anxiety scores (as defined within the study); clinically important change in quality of life, that is any change in quality of life score (average and endpoint) according to validated quality of life scales; and number of hospital attendances for seizures. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1277 records from the databases and search strategies. We found 10 further records by searching other resources (handsearching). We removed 469 duplicate records and screened 818 records (title and abstract) for inclusion in the review. We excluded 785 records based on the title and abstract and assessed 33 full-text articles. We excluded 29 studies: eight studies did not assess interventions to prevent SUDEP; eight studies were review articles, not clinical studies; five studies measured sensitivity of devices to detect GTCS but did not directly measure SUDEP; six studies assessed risk factors for SUDEP but not interventions for preventing SUDEP; and two studies did not have a control group. We included one cohort study and three case-control studies of serious to critical risk of bias. The 6-month prospective cohort study observed no significant effect of providing patients with SUDEP information on drug compliance and quality of life, anxiety and depression levels. The study was too short and with no deaths observed in either group to determine a protective effect. Two case control studies reported a protective effect for nocturnal supervision against SUDEP. However due to significant heterogeneity, the results could not be combined in meta-analysis. One study of 154 SUDEP cases and 616 controls reported an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.53; P < 0.0001). The same study demonstrated the protective effect was independent of seizure control, suggesting that nocturnal supervision is not just a surrogate marker of seizure control. The second case-control study of 48 SUDEP cases and 220 controls reported an unadjusted OR of 0.08 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.27; P < 0.0001). The third case-control study of residential care centre patients who were already receiving physical checks more than 15 minutes apart throughout the night did not report any protective effect for additional nocturnal supervision (physical checks < 15 minutes apart; use of listening devices; dormitory setting; and use of bed sensors). However the same study did ascertain a difference between centres: the residential centre with the lowest level of supervision had the highest incidence of SUDEP. The case-control studies did not report on quality of life or depression and anxiety scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited, very low-certainty evidence that supervision at night reduces the incidence of SUDEP. Further research is required to identify the effectiveness of other current interventions - for example seizure detection devices, safety pillows, SSRIs, early surgical evaluation, educational programmes, and opiate and adenosine antagonists - in preventing SUDEP in people with epilepsy.

Levetiracetam add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Drug resistance is common in focal epilepsy. In this update, we summarised the current evidence regarding add-on levetiracetam in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The original review was published in 2001 and last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of levetiracetam when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to November 2018. We contacted the manufacturers of levetiracetam and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of add-on levetiracetam treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency (response), treatment withdrawal, adverse effects (including a specific analysis of changes in behaviour), cognitive effects, and quality of life (QoL). Primary analysis was intention-to-treat. We performed meta-analysis for all outcomes using a Mantel-Haenszel approach and calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all estimates apart from adverse effects (99% CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi² test and the I² statistic. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 14 trials (2455 participants), predominantly possessing low risks of bias. Participants were adults in 12 trials (2159 participants) and children in the remaining two (296 participants). The doses of levetiracetam tested were 500 mg/day to 4000 mg/day in adults, and 60 mg/kg/day in children. Treatment ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. When individual doses were examined, levetiracetam at either 500 mg/day or 4000 mg/day did not perform better than placebo for the 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency outcome (500 mg: RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.62; P = 0.26; 4000 mg: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.57; P = 0.34). Levetiracetam was significantly better than placebo at all other individual doses (1000 mg to 3000 mg). RR was significantly in favour of levetiracetam compared to placebo when results were pooled across all doses (RR 2.37, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.78; 14 studies, 2455 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose-response analysis demonstrated that the odds of achieving response (50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency) were increased by nearly 40% (odds ratio (OR) 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.58) for each 1000 mg increase in dose of levetiracetam. There were important levels of heterogeneity across multiple comparisons. Participants were not significantly more likely to experience treatment withdrawal with levetiracetam than with placebo (pooled RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 13 studies, 2428 participants; high-certainty evidence). Somnolence was the most common adverse effect, affecting 13% of participants, and it was significantly associated with levetiracetam compared to placebo (pooled RR 1.62, 99% CI 1.19 to 2.20; 13 studies, 2423 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Changes in behaviour were negligible in adults (1% affected; RR 1.79, 99% CI 0.59 to 5.41), but significant in children (23% affected; RR 1.90, 99% CI 1.16 to 3.11). Levetiracetam had a positive effect on some aspects of cognition and QoL in adults and worsened certain aspects of child behaviour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review update finds that in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, levetiracetam added on to usual care is more effective than placebo at reducing seizure frequency, it is unlikely to be stopped by patients, and it has minimal adverse effects outside of potential worsening behaviour in children. These findings are unchanged from the previous review update in 2012. This review update contributes two key additional findings: 1. a 500 mg daily dose of levetiracetam is no more effective than placebo at reducing seizures; and 2. the odds of response (50% reduction in seizure frequency) are increased by nearly 40% for each 1000 mg increase in dose of levetiracetam. It seems reasonable to continue the use of levetiracetam in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Psychological treatments for people with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Given the significant impact epilepsy may have on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of individuals with epilepsy and their families, there is increasing clinical interest in evidence-based psychological treatments, aimed at enhancing psychological and seizure-related outcomes for this group. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQOL outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following databases on 12 August 2019, without language restrictions: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 09 August 2019), and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 onwards), and from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We screened the references from included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted researchers in the field for unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs for this review. HRQOL was the main outcome. For the operational definition of 'psychological treatments', we included a broad range of skills-based psychological treatments and education-only interventions designed to improve HRQOL, seizure frequency and severity, as well as psychiatric and behavioral health comorbidities for adults and children with epilepsy. These psychological treatments were compared to treatment as usual (TAU), an active control group (such as social support group), or antidepressant pharmacotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 completed RCTs, with a total of 3526 participants. Of these studies, 27 investigated skills-based psychological interventions. The remaining nine studies were education-only interventions. Six studies investigated interventions for children and adolescents, three studies investigated interventions for adolescents and adults, and the remaining studies investigated interventions for adults. Based on satisfactory clinical and methodological homogeneity, we pooled data from 11 studies (643 participants) that used the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31) or other QOLIE inventories (such as QOLIE-89 or QOLIE-31-P) convertible to QOLIE-31. We found significant mean changes for the QOLIE-31 total score and six subscales (emotional well-being, energy and fatigue, overall QoL, seizure worry, medication effects, and cognitive functioning). The mean changes in the QOLIE-31 total score (mean improvement of 5.23 points, 95% CI 3.02 to 7.44; P < 0.001), and the overall QoL score (mean improvement of 5.95 points, 95% CI 3.05 to 8.85; P < 0.001) exceeded the threshold of minimally important change (MIC: total score: 4.73 points; QoL score: 5.22 points), indicating a clinically meaningful postintervention improvement in HRQOL. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence provided by the meta-analysis due to serious risks of bias in some of the included studies. Consequently, these results provided moderate-certainty evidence that psychological treatments for adults with epilepsy may enhance overall HRQOL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice: Skills-based psychological interventions improve HRQOL in adults and adolescents with epilepsy. Adjunctive use of skills-based psychological treatments for adults and adolescents with epilepsy may provide additional benefits in HRQOL when these are incorporated into patient-centered management. We judge the evidence to be of moderate certainty. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Investigators should strictly adhere to the CONSORT guidelines to improve the quality of reporting on their interventions. A thorough description of intervention protocols is necessary to ensure reproducibility. When examining the effectiveness of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy, the use of standardized HRQOL inventories, such as the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventories (QOLIE-31, QOLIE-31-P, and QOLIE-89) would increase comparability. Unfortunately, there is a critical gap in pediatric RCTs and RCTs including people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. Finally, in order to increase the overall quality of RCT study designs, adequate randomization with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment should be pursued. As attrition is often high in research that requires active participation, an intention-to-treat analysis should be carried out. Treatment fidelity and treatment competence should also be assessed. These important dimensions, which are related to 'Risk of bias' assessment, should always be reported.

European Medicines Agency Policy 0070: an exploratory review of data utility in clinical study reports for academic research.

BACKGROUND: Clinical study reports (CSRs) have been increasingly utilised within academic research in recent years. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Policy 0070 'Phase 1,' which came into effect in January 2015, requires the publication of regulatory documents such as CSRs from central applications in an anonymised format. EMA Policy 0070 requires sponsors to demonstrate careful consideration of data utility within anonymised CSRs published within the scope of the policy, yet the concept of data utility is not clearly defined in the associated anonymisation guidance. OBJECTIVE: To review the use of data from CSRs in published academic research and to hypothesise the potential data utility of CSRs anonymised under the objectives of EMA Policy 0070 for future academic research. METHODS: Review of the objectives, research methodologies and findings of academic research reports using unpublished data from CSRs (prior to EMA Policy 0070). Semi-structured interviews with authors of academic research reports, including questions related to data utility of anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070. RESULTS: Thirteen academic research reports were identified and reviewed. The research purposes ranged from assessment of reporting bias, comparison of methods and results with published data sources, detailed evaluation of harms and adverse events, re-analysis and novel analyses including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. All of the examples identified required access to the methods and results sections of CSRs (including aggregated summary tables) and research purposes relating to evaluation of adverse events also required access to participant narratives. Retaining anonymised participant narratives relating to interventions, findings and events, while maintaining an acceptably low risk of participant re-identification, may provide an important gain in data utility and further understanding of drug safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides an initial insight into the previous use of CSR data and current practices for including regulatory data in academic research. This work also provides early guidance to qualitatively assess and document data utility within anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.

Treatments for seizures in catamenial (menstrual-related) epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses.Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy, and may have a significant negative impact on quality of life. Women may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aimed to address these issues in order to inform clinical practice and future research. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to 10 January 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web; includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946 to 9 January 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blinded or openlabel design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. Types of interventions included: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and mean change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 62 records from the databases and search strategies. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses.Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for mean change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results on the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported that the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group.Results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason in the pooled progesterone RCTs when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I2 = 0%) or for treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I2 = 0%). No treatment withdrawals from the norethisterone RCTs were reported. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life.We judged the evidence from the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias and from the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out.Our review highlighted an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those patients who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.