Therapeutic vaccines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: New strategies in immunotherapy with specific antigens that trigger an anti-tumour immune response in people with lung cancer open the possibility of developing therapeutic vaccines aimed at boosting the adaptive immune response against cancer cells. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of therapeutic vaccines for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wanfang Data, and China Journal Net (CNKI) up to 22 August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic cancer vaccine, alone or in combination with other treatments, in adults (> 18 years) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whatever the line of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival, and serious adverse events; secondary outcomes were three- and five-year survival rates and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 2177 participants. The outcome analyses included only 2045 participants (1401 men and 644 women). The certainty of the evidence varied by vaccine and outcome, and ranged from moderate to very low. We report only the results for primary outcomes here. TG4010 The addition of the vector-based vaccine, TG4010, to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may increase progression-free survival slightly (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 1 study, 222 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.19; 2 studies, 362 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidermal growth factor vaccine Epidermal growth factor vaccine, compared to best supportive care as switch maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 1 study, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.98; 2 studies, 458 participants; low-certainty evidence). hTERT (vx-001) The hTERT (vx-001) vaccine compared to placebo as maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.34; 1 study, 190 participants). Racotumomab Racotumomab compared to placebo as a switch maintenance treatment post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 176 participants. It may increase overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.87). It may make little to no difference in progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00) and in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.18). Racotumomab versus docetaxel as switch maintenance therapy post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 145 participants. The study did not report hazard rates on overall survival or progression-free survival time, but the difference in median survival times was very small - less than one month. Racotumomab may result in little to no difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event compared with docetaxel (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83). Personalised peptide vaccine Personalised peptide vaccine plus docetaxel compared to docetaxel plus placebo post-chemotherapy treatment may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52) and progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.42). OSE2101 The OSE2101 vaccine compared with chemotherapy, after chemotherapy or immunotherapy, was assessed in one study with 219 participants. It may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19). It may result in a small difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99). SRL172 The SRL172 vaccine of killed Mycobacterium vaccae, added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, may result in no difference in overall survival, and may increase the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.43; 351 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adding a vaccine resulted in no differences in overall survival, except for racotumomab, which showed some improvement compared to placebo, but the difference in median survival time was very small (1.4 months) and the study only included 176 participants. Regarding progression-free survival, we observed no differences between the compared treatments, except for TG4010, which may increase progression-free survival slightly. There were no differences between the compared treatments in serious treatment-related adverse events, except for SRL172 (killed Mycobacterium vaccae) added to chemotherapy, which was associated with an increase in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, and OSE2101, which may decrease slightly the proportion of people having at least one serious treatment-related adverse event. These conclusions should be interpreted cautiously, as the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence prevents drawing solid conclusions: many vaccines were evaluated in a single study with small numbers of participants and events.

Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Neural mobilisations (NM) have been advocated for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain; however, it is unclear what types of patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain (if any) may benefit. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PeDro, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they assessed the effectiveness of NM in nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, and outcome measures were pain intensity and/or disability. Studies were classified according to their inclusion/exclusion criteria as radiculopathy , Wainner cluster , Hall , and Elvey cluster or other . Meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Rob2 tool. Twenty-seven studies were included. For pain and disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than no treatment (pooled pain mean difference [MD] = -2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.81 to -1.81; pooled disability standardized mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI = -2.72 to -0.37), increased the effectiveness of standard physiotherapy as an adjuvant when compared with standard physiotherapy alone (pooled pain MD = -1.44, 95% CI = -1.98 to -0.89; pooled disability MD = -11.07, 95% CI = -16.38 to -5.75) but was no more effective than cervical traction (pooled pain MD = -0.33, 95% CI = -1.35 to 0.68; pooled disability MD = -10.09, 95% CI = -21.89 to 1.81). For disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than exercise (pooled MD = -18.27, 95% CI = -20.29 to -17.44). In most comparisons, there were significant differences in the effectiveness of NM between the subgroups. Neural mobilisations was consistently more effective than all alternative interventions (no treatment, traction, exercise, and standard physiotherapy alone) in 13 studies classified as Wainner cluster . PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376087.

Remotely delivered information, training and support for informal caregivers of people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia. Psychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor access to transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy. Our primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants). We downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty. In the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53). In the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information alone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Remotely delivered interventions including support, training or both, with or without information, may slightly reduce caregiver burden and improve caregiver depressive symptoms when compared with provision of information alone, but not when compared with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control. They seem to make little or no difference to health-related quality of life. Caregivers receiving training or support were more likely than those receiving information alone to drop out of the studies, which might limit applicability. The efficacy of these interventions may depend on the nature and availability of usual services in the study settings.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchas personas con demencia son atendidas en casa por cuidadores informales no remunerados, generalmente miembros de la familia. Los cuidadores pueden sufrir una serie de efectos perjudiciales físicos, emocionales, económicos y sociales, que a menudo se describen colectivamente como una carga para el cuidador. El grado de carga que se experimenta está asociado con las características del cuidador, como el género, y con las características de la persona con demencia, como la etapa de la demencia, y la presencia de problemas de comportamiento o trastornos neuropsiquiátricos. Es un fuerte predictor del ingreso en una residencia para personas con demencia. Las intervenciones psicoeducativas pueden prevenir o reducir la carga del cuidador. En general, tienen como objetivo mejorar los conocimientos de los cuidadores sobre la enfermedad y su cuidado; aumentar el sentido de competencia de los cuidadores y su capacidad para afrontar situaciones difíciles; aliviar los sentimientos de aislamiento y permitir que los cuidadores atiendan sus propias necesidades emocionales y físicas. Estas intervenciones son heterogéneas y varían en su marco teórico, sus componentes y sus formatos de administración. Las intervenciones que se realizan a distancia, utilizando material impreso, el teléfono o las tecnologías de vídeo, pueden ser particularmente adecuadas para los cuidadores que tienen dificultades para acceder a los servicios de forma presencial debido a sus propios problemas de salud, al escaso acceso al transporte o a la falta de un cuidado alternativo. Durante la pandemia de covid­19, las medidas de contención en muchos países exigían que las personas estuvieran aisladas en sus hogares, incluidas las personas con demencia y sus familiares cuidadores. En tales circunstancias, no hay alternativa a la realización de intervenciones a distancia. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia y la aceptabilidad de las intervenciones realizadas a distancia con el fin de reducir la carga y mejorar el estado de ánimo y la calidad de vida de los cuidadores informales de personas con demencia. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 10 de abril de 2020 se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Demencia y trastornos cognitivos (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE, Embase y otras cuatro bases de datos, así como en dos registros internacionales de ensayos. También se examinaron las bibliografías de documentos de revisión pertinentes y de ensayos publicados. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Sólo se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que evaluaron la administración a distancia de intervenciones estructuradas para los cuidadores informales que atendían a personas con demencia que vivían en el domicilio. Los cuidadores debían ser adultos no remunerados (parientes o miembros de la comunidad de la persona). Las intervenciones se podían realizar utilizando materiales impresos, el teléfono, la internet o una mezcla de estos, pero no podían implicar un contacto presencial con profesionales. Los componentes de la intervención se clasificaron como información, formación o apoyo. Las intervenciones de información incluyeron dos elementos clave: i) proporcionaron información estandarizada, y ii) el cuidador desempeñaba un papel pasivo. Las intervenciones de apoyo promovieron la interacción con otras personas (profesionales o iguales). Las intervenciones de formación entrenaron a los cuidadores en habilidades prácticas para proporcionar la atención. Se excluyeron las intervenciones que consistieron principalmente en psicoterapia individual. Los desenlaces principales fueron la carga del cuidador, el estado de ánimo, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y el abandono por cualquier motivo. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron los conocimientos y aptitudes de los cuidadores, la utilización de los recursos de atención sanitaria y social, el ingreso de la persona con demencia en una institución y la calidad de vida de la persona con demencia. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la selección de los estudios, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos. Se utilizó la Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) para describir las intervenciones. Los metanálisis se realizaron mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios para obtener las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto. Se utilizaron los métodos GRADE para describir el grado de certeza sobre las estimaciones del efecto. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 26 estudios (2367 participantes). Se compararon (1) las intervenciones que incluyeron formación, apoyo o ambos, con o sin información (intervenciones experimentales) con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención (12 estudios, 944 participantes); y (2) las mismas intervenciones experimentales con el suministro de información solamente (14 estudios, 1423 participantes). La calidad de la evidencia se redujo por las limitaciones de los estudios y, en el caso de algunos desenlaces, por la falta de consistencia entre los estudios. Hubo un riesgo frecuente de sesgo debido a la autocalificación de los desenlaces subjetivos por parte de participantes que no estaban cegados a la intervención. Los métodos de asignación al azar no siempre se informaron bien y hubo un posible sesgo de desgaste en algunos estudios. Por lo tanto, toda la evidencia fue de certeza moderada o baja. En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales probablemente tienen poco o ningún efecto sobre la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 597 participantes; diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: ­0,35 a 0,23); los síntomas depresivos (ocho estudios, 638 participantes; DME ­0,05; IC del 95%: ­0,22 a 0,12) o la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (dos estudios, 311 participantes; DME 0,10; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a 0,32). Las intervenciones experimentales probablemente dan lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el abandono por cualquier motivo (ocho estudios, 661 participantes; razón de riesgos [RR] 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,87 a 1,53). En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con una condición control de información sola, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales pueden dar lugar a una leve reducción de la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 650 participantes; DME ­0,24; IC del 95%: ­0,51 a 0,04); probablemente dan lugar a una leve mejoría de los síntomas depresivos (11 estudios, 1100 participantes; DME ­0,25; IC del 95%: ­0,43 a ­0,06); podrían dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud de los cuidadores (dos estudios, 257 participantes; DME ­0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,28 a 0,21); y probablemente dé lugar a un aumento de los abandonos por cualquier motivo (12 estudios, 1266 participantes; RR 1,51; IC del 95%: 1,04 a 2,20). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Las intervenciones realizadas a distancia, como el apoyo, la formación o ambas, con o sin información, podrían reducir ligeramente la carga del cuidador y mejorar los síntomas depresivos del cuidador en comparación con el suministro de información únicamente, pero no en comparación con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención. Parecen dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Los cuidadores que recibieron formación o apoyo tuvieron más probabilidades de abandonar los estudios que los que recibieron sólo información, lo que podría limitar la aplicabilidad. La eficacia de esas intervenciones puede depender de la naturaleza y la disponibilidad de los servicios habituales en los ámbitos de estudio.

Myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease - such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness - are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: We found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months. None of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these. In adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). In children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.

Apomorphine for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sublingual apomorphine could be an option in patients with erectile dysfunction who cannot take phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (e.g., using nitrates). We have completed a systematic review to evaluate the effects of sublingual apomorphine comparing with placebo for treating erectile dysfunction. The evidence searching process finished on 9 January 2019. We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment length varied from 4 to 8 weeks and doses ranged from 2 to 6 mg. The percent of successful sexual intercourse attempts per ingested dose of apomorphine was evaluated in eight studies. All the studies found that apomorphine was better than placebo (6-27% more successful intercourse attempts than with placebo), but differences were not statistically significant in one study done in patients previously treated with radical prostatectomy. Regarding erectile function scores, three studies reported higher improvement on the erectile function scores for apomorphine. Differences with placebo were not clinically relevant in another two studies, one in which only diabetic patients were included and one in which only patients with radical prostatectomy were involved. Discontinuation of treatment due to adverse events was higher for apomorphine, particularly for higher doses. Available evidence suggests that sublingual apomorphine is more effective than placebo, except for patients previously treated with radical prostatectomy, and is generally well tolerated at doses of 2 or 3 mg. Nowadays, sublingual apomorphine is the only licensed oral drug for erectile dysfunction not absolutely contraindicated with nitrates use, and more RCTs should be performed to evaluate its effects and safety for treating ED.

Alcohol intake reduction for controlling hypertension.

BACKGROUND: High blood pressure constitutes one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity all over the world. At the same time, heavy drinking increases the risk for developing cardiovascular diseases, including cardiomyopathy, hypertension, atrial arrhythmias, or stroke. Several studies have already assessed specifically the relationship between alcohol intake and hypertension. However, the potential effect on blood pressure of alcohol intake reduction interventions is largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of any intervention to reduce alcohol intake in terms of blood pressure decrease in hypertensive people with alcohol consumption compared to a control intervention or no intervention at all. To determine additional effects related to mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, or quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, and MEDLINE Ovid In-Process, Embase Ovid (from 1974), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Trial authors were contacted when needed and no language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with minimum 12 weeks duration and including 50 or more subjects per group with quantitative measurement of alcohol consumption and/or biological measurement of the outcomes of interest. Participants were adults (16 years of age or older) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90 mmHg, and SBP ≥ 130 or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg in participants with diabetes. We included any intervention implemented to reduce their alcohol intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures adopted by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1210 studies were screened. We included one randomised controlled trial involving a total of 269 participants with a two-year follow-up. Individual patient data for all participants were provided and used in this review. No differences were found between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group for overall mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.17; low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (not estimable) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.79; very low-certainty evidence). There was no statistical difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.92 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.66 to 3.82 mmHg; very low-certainty evidence) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decrease (MD 0.98 mmHg, 95% CI -1.69 to 3.65 mmHg; low-certainty evidence) between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group. We also did not find any differences in the proportion of subjects with SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.65; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning secondary outcomes, the alcohol intake was significantly reduced in the cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with the control group (MD 191.33 g, 95% CI 85.36 to 297.30 g). We found no differences between the active and control intervention in the proportion of subjects with lower-risk alcohol intake versus higher-risk and extreme drinkers at the end of the study (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.60). There were no estimable results for the quality of life outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: An intervention for decreasing alcohol intake consumption did not result in differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with a control intervention, although there was a reduction in alcohol intake favouring the active intervention. No differences were found either for overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events. No data on serious adverse events or quality of life were available to assess. Adequate randomised controlled trials are needed to provide additional evidence on this specific question.

Interventions for American cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis.

BACKGROUND: On the American continent, cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (CL and MCL) are diseases associated with infection by several species of Leishmania parasites. Pentavalent antimonials remain the first-choice treatment. There are alternative interventions, but reviewing their effectiveness and safety is important as availability is limited. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for all immuno-competent people who have American cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (ACML). SEARCH METHODS: We updated our database searches of the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and CINAHL to August 2019. We searched five trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing either single or combination treatments for ACML in immuno-competent people, diagnosed by clinical presentation and Leishmania infection confirmed by smear, culture, histology, or polymerase chain reaction on a biopsy specimen. The comparators were either no treatment, placebo only, or another active compound. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our key outcomes were the percentage of participants 'cured' at least three months after the end of treatment, adverse effects, and recurrence. We used GRADE to assess evidence certainty for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 studies (37 were new), totalling 6533 randomised participants with ATL. The studies were mainly conducted in Central and South America at regional hospitals, local healthcare clinics, and research centres. More male participants were included (mean age: roughly 28.9 years (SD: 7.0)). The most common confirmed species were L. braziliensis, L. panamensis, and L. mexicana. The most assessed interventions and comparators were non-antimonial systemics (particularly oral miltefosine) and antimonials (particularly meglumine antimoniate (MA), which was also a common intervention), respectively. Three studies included moderate-to-severe cases of mucosal leishmaniasis but none included cases with diffuse cutaneous or disseminated CL, considered the severe cutaneous form. Lesions were mainly ulcerative and located in the extremities and limbs. The follow-up (FU) period ranged from 28 days to 7 years. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain (especially performance bias). None of the studies reported the degree of functional or aesthetic impairment, scarring, or quality of life. Compared to placebo, at one-year FU, intramuscular (IM) MA given for 20 days to treat L. braziliensis and L. panamensis infections in ACML may increase the likelihood of complete cure (risk ratio (RR) 4.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 21.38; 2 RCTs, 157 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may also make little to no difference, since the 95% CI includes the possibility of both increased and reduced healing (cure rates), and IMMA probably increases severe adverse effects such as myalgias and arthralgias (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; 1 RCT, 134 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IMMA may make little to no difference to the recurrence risk, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of both increased and reduced risk (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 19.26; 1 RCT, 127 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, at six-month FU, oral miltefosine given for 28 days to treat L. mexicana, L. panamensis and L. braziliensis infections in American cutaneous leishmaniasis (ACL) probably improves the likelihood of complete cure (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.38), and probably increases nausea rates (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.49 to 10.48) and vomiting (RR 6.92, 95% CI 2.68 to 17.86) (moderate-certainty evidence). Oral miltefosine may make little to no difference to the recurrence risk (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.37 to 23.89; low-certainty evidence), but the 95% CI includes the possibility of both increased and reduced risk (all based on 1 RCT, 133 participants). Compared to IMMA, at 6 to 12 months FU, oral miltefosine given for 28 days to treat L. braziliensis, L. panamensis, L. guyanensis and L. amazonensis infections in ACML may make little to no difference to the likelihood of complete cure (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; 7 RCTs, 676 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on moderate-certainty evidence (3 RCTs, 464 participants), miltefosine probably increases nausea rates (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.49) and vomiting (RR 4.76, 95% CI 1.82 to 12.46) compared to IMMA. Recurrence risk was not reported. For the rest of the key comparisons, recurrence risk was not reported, and risk of adverse events could not be estimated. Compared to IMMA, at 6 to 12 months FU, oral azithromycin given for 20 to 28 days to treat L. braziliensis infections in ACML probably reduces the likelihood of complete cure (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 2 RCTs, 93 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to intravenous MA (IVMA) and placebo, at 12 month FU, adding topical imiquimod to IVMA, given for 20 days to treat L. braziliensis, L. guyanensis and L. peruviana infections in ACL probably makes little to no difference to the likelihood of complete cure (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 1 RCT, 80 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to MA, at 6 months FU, one session of local thermotherapy to treat L. panamensis and L. braziliensis infections in ACL reduces the likelihood of complete cure (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 1 RCT, 292 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to IMMA and placebo, at 26 weeks FU, adding oral pentoxifylline to IMMA to treat CL (species not stated) probably makes little to no difference to the likelihood of complete cure (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 70 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence certainty was mostly moderate or low, due to methodological shortcomings, which precluded conclusive results. Overall, both IMMA and oral miltefosine probably result in an increase in cure rates, and nausea and vomiting are probably more common with miltefosine than with IMMA. Future trials should investigate interventions for mucosal leishmaniasis and evaluate recurrence rates of cutaneous leishmaniasis and its progression to mucosal disease.

Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients and higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables on lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether vitamins and minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce lung cancer incidence and lung cancer mortality in healthy populations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from 1974 to May 2019 and screened references included in published studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamins or mineral supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled results using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified three new trials for a total of 12 studies. Six analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, three combined vitamin D3 + calcium, four vitamin E combined with other products, one selenium supplements and nine studied combinations of two or more products. Four studies included only men and five only women. Vitamin A results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; 5 RCTs, 212314 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.38; 3 RCTs, 190118 participants; high-certainty evidence). But in smokers or asbestos workers vitamin A increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 43995 participants; high-certainty evidence), lung cancer mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 29426 participants; high-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 32883 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin A increases the risk of minor side effects, such as yellowing of the skin and minor gastrointestinal symptoms (high-certainty evidence). Vitamin C likely results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 2 RCTs, 14953 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In women, vitamin C increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.95; 1 RCT, 7627 participants; high-certainty evidence). In men, vitamin C results in little to no difference in mortality for lung cancer (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 7326 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin D + calcium may result in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, 37601 women; low-certainty evidence). Vitamin E results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 3 RCTs, 36841 participants; high-certainty evidence) or to lung cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 29214 participants; high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes (hazard ratio (HR), 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 14641 participants; high-certainty evidence). Calcium results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 733 participants) or in risk of renal calculi (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 18.57; 1 RCT, 733 participants; low-certainty evidence). Selenium in men results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and increases the risk for grade 1 to 2 dermatitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.53; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination of vitamins A, C, E + selenium + zinc results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 12741 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of supplements for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. Vitamin A supplements increase lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos. Vitamin C increases lung cancer incidence in women. Vitamin E increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes.

L-acetylcarnitine for treating fragile X syndrome.

BACKGROUND: People with fragile X syndrome (FXS) have an intellectual dysfunction that can range from very mild to severe. Symptoms can include speech and language delays and behavioural difficulties such as aggression or self injurious behaviours, emotional lability, and anxiety-related problems (for example obsessive-compulsive symptoms and perseverative behaviours). In some cases, affected people may have an additional diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or an autism spectrum disorder. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of L-acetylcarnitine in improving the psychological, intellectual, and social performance of people with FXS. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and two other databases. We also searched three trials registers, four theses databases, and the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of L-acetylcarnitine, at any dose, in people of any age diagnosed with FXS compared with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each trial, two review authors independently extracted data on the children included and interventions compared, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies across the following domains: randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential sources of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We found only two RCTs that compared oral L-acetylcarnitine (LAC) with oral placebo in children with FXS. The studies included a total of 83 participants, all of them male, who were treated and followed for one year. The age of participants at the start of treatment ranged from 6 to 13 years, with a mean age of 9 years. Neither study provided information on randomisation, allocation concealment procedures, or blinding of outcome assessment, and we received no responses from the authors we emailed for clarification. We therefore rated studies as being at unclear risk of bias on these domains. We judged both studies to be at low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, but to be at high risk of other bias, as at least one study was funded by a drug company, and in both studies people working for the company were part of the research team.We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of the available evidence. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low due to the imprecision of results and high risk of other bias.Regarding the primary outcome of psychological and learning capabilities, both studies assessed the effect of interventions on children's verbal and non-verbal intellectual functioning using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. The authors did not provide detailed data on those results but said that they found no important differences between treatment and placebo.Both studies evaluated the impact of the treatment on hyperactive behaviour using the Conners' Abbreviated Parent-Teacher Questionnaire. In one study, teachers' assessments of the children found no clear evidence of a difference (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.08 to 6.08, n = 51; low-quality evidence). The other study stated that there were no differences between treated and untreated participants, but did not provide detailed data for inclusion in the meta-analysis.Parents' assessments favoured LAC in one study (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19, n = 17; low-quality evidence), but not in the other (MD -2.80, 95% CI -7.61 to 2.01, n = 51; low-quality evidence), though changes were not large enough to be considered clinically relevant.Regarding social skills, one study reported no clear evidence of a difference in Vineland Adaptive Behavior composite scores (MD 8.20, 95% CI -0.02 to 16.42, n = 51; low-quality evidence), yet results in the socialisation domain favoured LAC (MD 11.30, 95% CI 2.52 to 20.08, n = 51; low-quality evidence).Both studies assessed the safety of the active treatment and recorded no side effects. Neither of the included studies assessed the secondary outcome of caregiver burden. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence from two small trials showed that when compared to placebo, LAC may not improve intellectual functioning or hyperactive behaviour in children with FXS.

Transmyocardial laser revascularization versus medical therapy for refractory angina.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a review previously published in 2009. Chronic angina and advanced forms of coronary disease are increasingly more frequent. In spite of the improvement in the efficacy of available revascularization treatments, a subgroup of patients continue suffering from refractory angina. Transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR) has been proposed to improve the clinical situation of these patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (both benefits and harms) of TMLR versus optimal medical treatment in people with refractory angina who are not candidates for percutaneous coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft, in alleviating angina severity, reducing mortality and improving ejection fraction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following resources up to June 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. We applied no languages restrictions. We also checked reference lists of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies if they fulfilled the following criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TMLR, by thoracotomy, in patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society or New York Heart Association angina grade III-IV who were excluded from other revascularization procedures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data for each trial about the population and interventions compared and assessed the risk of bias of the studies, evaluating randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential sources of bias. MAIN RESULTS: From a total of 502 references, we retrieved 47 papers for more detailed evaluation. We selected 20 papers, reporting data from seven studies, which included 1137 participants, of which 559 were randomized to TMLR. Participants and professionals were not blinded, which suggests high risk of performance bias. Overall, 43.8% of participants in the treatment group decreased two angina classes, as compared with 14.8% in the control group: odds ratio (OR) 4.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.43 to 6.25), and heterogeneity was present. Mortality by intention-to-treat analysis was similar in both groups at 30 days (4.0% in the TMLR group and 3.5% in the control group), and one year (12.2% in the TMLR group and 11.9% in the control group). However, the 30-day mortality as-treated was 6.8% in the TMLR group and 0.8% in the control group (pooled OR was 3.76, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.66), mainly due to a higher mortality in participants crossing from standard treatment to TMLR. The assessment of subjective outcomes, such as improvement in angina, was affected by a high risk of bias and this may explain the differences found. Other adverse events such as myocardial infarction, arrhythmias or heart failure, were not considered in this review, as they were not predefined outcomes in trials design and they show a high inconsistency across studies. No new trials on transmyocardial laser revascularization have been published in the last ten years and it is very unlikely that new research will be undertaken in this field. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that risks associated with TMLR outweigh the potential clinical benefits. Subjective outcomes are subject to high risk of bias and no differences were found in survival, but a significant increase in postoperative mortality and other safety outcomes suggests that the procedure may pose unacceptable risks.

Palliative endobronchial brachytherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 2, 2008 of The Cochrane Library. Non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) constitute about 80% of all lung cancer cases. Although surgery is the only curative treatment of NSCLC, fewer than 20% of tumors can be radically resected. Radiotherapy is one of the main treatment modalities in lung cancer, contributing to both its cure and palliation. Endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) has been used as one approach to improve local control either alone or in combination with other treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of palliative EBB compared with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or other alternative endoluminal treatments in controlling thoracic symptoms and increasing survival in patients with advanced NSCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to January 2012) and other databases as well as reference lists, and we handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different regimens of palliative EBB with EBRT or other endobronchial interventions in patients with advanced NSCLC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We included fourteen RCTs involving 953 participants. We included a new study assessing a variety of different fractionation schedules of high dose rate palliative EBB in this update. There were important differences in the doses of radiotherapy investigated, in the patient characteristics and in the outcomes measured. We found trials comparing EBB to EBRT alone, EBB plus EBRT to EBRT alone, EBB plus chemotherapy to EBB alone, EBB to neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd-YAG) laser and comparisons between various fractionation schedules of high dose rate EBB. From the heterogeneous information obtained from several small RCTs, we concluded that EBRT alone is more effective for palliation of NSCLC symptoms than EBB alone. Our findings did not provide conclusive evidence to recommend EBB plus EBRT to relieve symptoms compared to EBRT alone. Overall, for the primary endpoint of survival there was no evidence of benefit for EBB compared to EBRT and Nd-YAG laser or for the combination of EBB with chemotherapy. Additionally, findings from one trial suggested that twice 7.4 Gy was superior to the four times per week 3.8 Gy schedule for mean time of local control and fatal hemoptysis. No significant differences were found for fatal hemoptysis as an adverse event of EBB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence did not provide conclusive results that EBB plus EBRT improved symptom relief over EBRT alone. We were not able to provide conclusive evidence to recommend EBB with EBRT, EBB in preference to EBRT, chemotherapy or Nd-YAG laser. From heterogeneous information obtained from several small RCTs, we conclude that EBRT alone is more effective for palliation than EBB alone. For patients previously treated by EBRT who are symptomatic from recurrent endobronchial central obstruction, EBB may be considered in selected cases.

Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 2, 2003. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients on lung cancer. Observational epidemiological studies suggest an association between higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables containing beta-carotene and a lower risk of lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether vitamins, minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce incidence and mortality from lung cancer in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we have used a search strategy adapted from the design in the original review. The following electronic databases have been searched up to December 2011: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). References included in published studies and reviews were also screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were randomised controlled clinical trials comparing different vitamins, mineral supplements or supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed the methodological quality of each trial and extracted data using a standardised form. For each study, relative risk and 95% confidence limits were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and pooled results were calculated using the random-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: In the first version of this review four studies were included; in this review update, an additional five studies have been included. Four studies included only males and two only females; two studies included only participants considered at high risk, namely smokers or exposed to asbestos, and one study included people deficient in many micronutrients. Six studies analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, four vitamin E, one selenium supplements, and six studied combinations of two or more products. All the RCTs included in this review were classified as being of low risk of bias.For people not at high risk of lung cancer and compared to placebo, none of the supplements of vitamins or minerals or their combinations resulted in a statistically significant difference in lung cancer incidence or mortality, except for a single study that included 7627 women and found a higher risk of lung cancer incidence for those taking vitamin C but not for total cancer incidence, but that effect was not seen in males or when the results for males and females were pooled.For people at high risk of lung cancer, such as smokers and those exposed to asbestos and compared to placebo, beta-carotene intake showed a small but statistically significant higher risk of lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality and for all-causes mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for recommending supplements of vitamins A, C, E, selenium, either alone or in different combinations, for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. There is some evidence that the use of beta-carotene supplements could be associated with a small increase in lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos.

Chemotherapy for brain metastases from small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 20% of all cases of lung cancer. It tends to disseminate early in the course of its natural history and to grow quickly. Approximately 10% to 18% of patients present with brain metastases (BM) at the time of initial diagnosis, and an additional 40% to 50% will develop BM some time during the course of their disease. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of BM from SCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Lung Cancer Review Group Specialised Register (July 2011), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to July 2011), EMBASE (2005 to July 2011), LILACS (1982 to July 2011) and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic chemotherapy (single agent or combination chemotherapy) with another chemotherapy regimen, palliative care, whole brain radiotherapy or any combination of these interventions for the treatment of BM as the only site of progression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were carried out independently by two review authors. As the included studies evaluated three different treatment modalities meta-analysis was not possible. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs, involving 192 participants, met inclusion criteria for this review. No significant differences for overall survival (OS) were reported in any of the trials: in the first trial, 33 patients received whole brain radiation therapy and no significant difference was found between patients treated with topotecan and those not treated with topotecan. In a second trial, in which 120 patients were randomized to receive teniposide with or without brain radiation therapy, the authors reported that the median progression-free survival (brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS)) was 3.5 months in the combined modality arm and 3.2 in the teniposide alone arm. In a third trial, comparing sequential and concomitant chemoradiotherapy (teniposide plus cisplatin) in 39 participants, the survival difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. While the first trial reported no significant difference in PFS, the second RCT found a significant difference favoring combined therapy group. The second trial also found that patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (teniposide plus whole brain radiotherapy) had a higher complete response rate than those receiving only the topoisomerase inhibitor. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the paucity of robust studies assessing the clinical effects of treatments, available evidence is insufficient to judge the effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy for the treatment of BM from SCLC. Published studies are insufficient to address the objectives of this review. According to the available evidence included in this review, chemotherapy does not improve specific brain PFS and OS in patients with SCLC. The combined treatment of teniposide and brain radiation therapy contributed to outcome in terms of increased complete remission and shorter time to progression (though not OS).

Non-invasive interventions for improving well-being and quality of life in patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 4, 2004 of The Cochrane Library. Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally. Despite advances in treatment, the outlook for the majority of patients remains grim and most face a pessimistic future accompanied by sometimes devastating effects on emotional and psychological health. Although chemotherapy is accepted as an effective treatment for advanced lung cancer, the high prevalence of treatment-related side effects as well the symptoms of disease progression highlight the need for high-quality palliative and supportive care to minimise symptom distress and to promote quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-invasive interventions delivered by healthcare professionals in improving symptoms, psychological functioning and quality of life in patients with lung cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We ran a search in February 2011 to update the original completed review. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, British Nursing Index and Archive (accessed through Ovid) and reference lists of relevant articles; we also contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of non-invasive interventions in improving well-being and quality of life in patients diagnosed with lung cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed relevant studies for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of relevant studies was performed by one author and checked by a second author. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included, six of which were added in this update. Three trials of a nursing intervention to manage breathlessness showed benefit in terms of symptom experience, performance status and emotional functioning. Four trials assessed structured nursing programmes and found positive effects on delay in clinical deterioration, dependency and symptom distress, and improvements in emotional functioning and satisfaction with care.Three trials assessed the effect of different psychotherapeutic, psychosocial and educational interventions in patients with lung cancer. One trial assessing counselling showed benefit for some emotional components of the illness but findings were not conclusive. One trial examined the effects of coaching sensory self monitoring and reporting on pain-related variables and found that although coaching increases the amount of pain data communicated to providers by patients with lung cancer, the magnitude of the effect is small and does not lead to improved efficacy of analgesics prescribed for each patient's pain level. One trial compared telephone-based sessions of either caregiver-assisted coping skills training (CST) or education/support involving the caregiver and found that patients in both treatment conditions showed improvements in pain, depression, quality of life and self efficacy.Two trials assessed exercise programmes; one found a beneficial effect on self empowerment and the other study showed an increase in quadriceps strength but no significant changes for any measure of quality of life. One trial of nutritional interventions found positive effects for increasing energy intake, but no improvement in quality of life. Two small trials of reflexology showed some positive but short-lasting effects on anxiety and pain intensity.The main limitations of the studies included were the variability of the interventions assessed and the approaches to measuring the considered outcomes, and the lack of data reported in the trials regarding allocation of patients to treatment groups and blinding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nurse follow-up programmes and interventions to manage breathlessness may produce beneficial effects. Counselling may help patients cope more effectively with emotional symptoms, but the evidence is not conclusive. Other psychotherapeutic, psychosocial and educational interventions can play some role in improving patients' quality of life. Exercise programmes and nutritional interventions have not shown relevant and lasting improvements of quality of life. Reflexology may have some beneficial effects in the short term.

Folic acid for fragile X syndrome.

BACKGROUND: It has been argued that individuals with fragile X syndrome could have low folate levels in their bodies and that supplementing their dietary intake might remediate the adverse developmental and behavioural effects of the condition. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of folic acid in the treatment of people with fragile X syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched four databases in November 2010: CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials, which were published between 1986 and 1992. Overall, they included 67 patients, all male, with ages ranging from one to 54 years. Intellectual disability in participants varied from borderline to severe and some studies included patients with an additional diagnosis of autism or autistic behaviour. Four of the studies were placebo-controlled cross-over trials and one study was a parallel design. The duration of follow-up ranged from two months to 12 months and the period on folic acid or placebo ranged from two to eight months. Doses of folic acid ranged from 10 mg to 250 mg per day, 10 mg per day being the most common. Most of the younger patients involved were also taking part in special education programmes (usually involving language and occupational therapy).We were not able to perform meta-analysis to combine results but none of the individual studies found evidence of clinical benefit with the use of folic acid medication in fragile X syndrome patients on any of the areas of interest, either psychological and learning capabilities or behaviour and social performance, as measured with standardised tools. Separate analysis of evidence for patients of different age groups, i.e. prepubertal children and postpubertal young people, found some statistically significant results, but did not show clear evidence of benefit for either group. Adverse effects of folic acid treatment were rare, not serious and transient.Studies were generally poorly reported and we classified only one study as being at low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of available evidence is low and not suitable for drawing conclusions about the effect of folic acid on fragile X syndrome patients. It consists of few studies with small samples of patients, all of them male, with little statistical power to detect anything other than huge effects.

Systematic review of pharmacological treatments in fragile X syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is considered the most common cause of inherited mental retardation. Affected people have mental impairment that can include Attention Deficit and/or Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism disorder, and speech and behavioural disorders. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed to treat those impairments. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature and summary of the evidence from clinical controlled trials that compared at least one pharmacological treatment with placebo or other treatment in individuals with diagnosis of FXS syndrome and assessed the efficacy and/or safety of the treatments. Studies were identified by a search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Databases using the terms fragile X and treatment. Risk of bias of the studies was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. RESULTS: The search identified 276 potential articles and 14 studies satisfied inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 studies on folic acid (9 with crossover design, only 1 of them with good methodological quality and low risk of bias) did not find in general significant improvements. A small sample size trial assessed dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate in patients with an additional diagnosis of ADHD and found some improvements in those taking methylphenidate, but the length of follow-up was too short. Two studies on L-acetylcarnitine, showed positive effects and no side effects in patients with an additional diagnosis of ADHD. Finally, one study on patients with an additional diagnosis of autism assessed ampakine compound CX516 and found no significant differences between treatment and placebo. Regarding safety, none of the studies that assessed that area found relevant side effects, but the number of patients included was too small to detect side effects with low incidence. CONCLUSION: Currently there is no robust evidence to support recommendations on pharmacological treatments in patients with FXS in general or in those with an additional diagnosis of ADHD or autism.