Surgery for nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-shortening, autosomal recessive disease that leads to abnormal electrolyte concentration in exocrine secretions. Secretion stasis in paranasal sinuses determines chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and nasal polyposis. Endoscopic sinus surgery is used to open the sinuses and allow medical treatment to work properly. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of sinus surgery alone or in combination with medical treatment (non-surgical) compared to medical treatment (non-surgical) alone on both nasal and pulmonary function in people with CF diagnosed with CRS with nasal polyposis. Further, to evaluate the impact of sinus surgery (with or without medical treatment) on hospitalization rates, use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbation rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched other databases (Pubmed, Embase, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Virtual Health Library and ClinicalTrials.gov). Date of last search: 18 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing groups who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and groups with medical treatment alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. They contacted the authors of the included study for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 66 publications relating to 50 studies from electronic searches. Only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and only limited information was available. In this study, 28 participants aged 19 to 28 years were randomized in equal numbers to either nasal irrigation alone or nasal irrigation with surgery (endoscopic polypectomy with extended sinusotomy). The certainty of the evidence was very low according to the GRADE approach. We are uncertain whether, compared to medical treatment alone, the addition of surgical intervention improves nasal symptoms, or reduces bacterial colonization, the use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbations. We are also uncertain whether the addition of surgery to medical treatment leads to changes in pulmonary function. There was one episode of bleeding during surgery that was corrected during the procedure with no further consequences. The study did not report on survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence means we are not certain if endoscopic sinus surgery to treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis is effective. Future research should be multicentric to increase the number of participants and increase statistical power. Adequate randomization and allocation concealment are important to guarantee that the groups are similar. Blinding, however, may not be possible in an ethical trial; even without blinding, results can achieve high-level evidence if the outcomes used are objective parameters. Future research should follow participants of all ages for at least 12 months to evaluate the evolution of nasal polyposis, its recurrence and how symptoms may return. We also consider mortality an important outcome to be assessed. Future clinical research should consider the effects of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulators, a new group of drugs that may affect the development of nasal polyps.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Pharmacological treatment for central sleep apnoea in adults.

BACKGROUND: The term central sleep apnoea (CSA) encompasses diverse clinical situations where a dysfunctional drive to breathe leads to recurrent respiratory events, namely apnoea (complete absence of ventilation) and hypopnoea sleep (insufficient ventilation) during sleep. Studies have demonstrated that CSA responds to some extent to pharmacological agents with distinct mechanisms, such as sleep stabilisation and respiratory stimulation. Some therapies for CSA are associated with improved quality of life, although the evidence on this association is uncertain. Moreover, treatment of CSA with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is not always effective or safe and may result in a residual apnoea-hypopnoea index. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment compared with active or inactive controls for central sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any type of pharmacological agent compared with active controls (e.g. other medications) or passive controls (e.g. placebo, no treatment or usual care) in adults with CSA as defined by the International Classification of Sleep Disorders 3rd Edition. We did not exclude studies based on the duration of intervention or follow-up. We excluded studies focusing on CSA due to periodic breathing at high altitudes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were central apnoea-hypopnoea index (cAHI), cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were quality of sleep, quality of life, daytime sleepiness, AHI, all-cause mortality, time to life-saving cardiovascular intervention, and non-serious adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included four cross-over RCTs and one parallel RCT, involving a total of 68 participants. Mean age ranged from 66 to 71.3 years and most participants were men. Four trials recruited people with CSA associated with heart failure, and one study included people with primary CSA. Types of pharmacological agents were acetazolamide (carbonic anhydrase inhibitor), buspirone (anxiolytic), theophylline (methylxanthine derivative) and triazolam (hypnotic), which were given for between three days and one week. Only the study on buspirone reported a formal evaluation of adverse events. These events were rare and mild. No studies reported serious adverse events, quality of sleep, quality of life, all-cause mortality, or time to life-saving cardiovascular intervention. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors versus inactive control Results were from two studies of acetazolamide versus placebo (n = 12) and acetazolamide versus no acetazolamide (n = 18) for CSA associated with heart failure. One study reported short-term outcomes and the other reported intermediate-term outcomes. We are uncertain whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors compared to inactive control reduce cAHI in the short term (mean difference (MD) -26.00 events per hour, 95% CI -43.84 to -8.16; 1 study, 12 participants; very low certainty). Similarly, we are uncertain whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors compared to inactive control reduce AHI in the short term (MD -23.00 events per hour, 95% CI -37.70 to 8.30; 1 study, 12 participants; very low certainty) or in the intermediate term (MD -6.98 events per hour, 95% CI -10.66 to -3.30; 1 study, 18 participants; very low certainty). The effect of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors on cardiovascular mortality in the intermediate term was also uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.48; 1 study, 18 participants; very low certainty). Anxiolytics versus inactive control Results were based on one study of buspirone versus placebo for CSA associated with heart failure (n = 16). The median difference between groups for cAHI was -5.00 events per hour (IQR -8.00 to -0.50), the median difference for AHI was -6.00 events per hour (IQR -8.80 to -1.80), and the median difference on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale for daytime sleepiness was 0 points (IQR -1.0 to 0.00). Methylxanthine derivatives versus inactive control Results were based on one study of theophylline versus placebo for CSA associated with heart failure (n = 15). We are uncertain whether methylxanthine derivatives compared to inactive control reduce cAHI (MD -20.00 events per hour, 95% CI -32.15 to -7.85; 15 participants; very low certainty) or AHI (MD -19.00 events per hour, 95% CI -30.27 to -7.73; 15 participants; very low certainty). Hypnotics versus inactive control Results were based on one trial of triazolam versus placebo for primary CSA (n = 5). Due to very serious methodological limitations and insufficient reporting of outcome measures, we were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of pharmacological therapy in the treatment of CSA. Although small studies have reported positive effects of certain agents for CSA associated with heart failure in reducing the number of respiratory events during sleep, we were unable to assess whether this reduction may impact the quality of life of people with CSA, owing to scarce reporting of important clinical outcomes such as sleep quality or subjective impression of daytime sleepiness. Furthermore, the trials mostly had short-term follow-up. There is a need for high-quality trials that evaluate longer-term effects of pharmacological interventions.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type VI.

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) or Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by the deficiency of arylsulphatase B. The resultant accumulation of dermatan sulphate causes lysosomal damage. The clinical symptoms are related to skeletal dysplasia (i.e. short stature and degenerative joint disease). Other manifestations include cardiac disease, impaired pulmonary function, ophthalmological complications, hepatosplenomegaly, sinusitis, otitis, hearing loss and sleep apnea. Intellectual impairment is generally absent. Clinical manifestation is typically by two or three years of age; however, slowly progressive cases may not present until adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with galsulfase is considered a new approach for treating MPS VI. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating MPS VI by ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: Eletronic searches were performed on the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of the latest search:  09 June 2021. Further searches of the following databases were also performed: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of the latest search: 20 August 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical studies of ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the the evidence using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: One study was included involving 39 participants who received either ERT with galsulfase (recombinant human arylsulphatase B) or placebo. This small study was considered overall to have an unclear risk of bias in relation to the design and implementation of the study, since the authors did not report how both the allocation generation and concealment were performed. Given the very low certainty of the evidence, we are uncertain whether at 24 weeks there was a difference between groups in relation to the 12-minute walk test, mean difference (MD) of 92.00 meters (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.00 to 172.00), or the three-minute stair climb, MD 5.70 (95% CI -0.10 to 11.50). In relation to respiratory tests, we are uncertain whether galsulfase makes any difference as compared to placebo in forced vital capacity in litres (FVC (L) (absolute change in baseline), given the very low certainty of the evidence. Cardiac function was not reported in the included study. We found that galsulfase, as compared to placebo, may decrease urinary glycosaminoglycan levels at 24 weeks, MD -227.00 (95% CI -264.00 to -190.00) (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences between the galsulfase and placebo groups in relation to adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). In general, the dose of galsulfase was well tolerated and there were no differences between groups. These events include drug-related adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, those during infusion, drug-related adverse events during infusion, and deaths. More infusion-related reactions were observed in the galsulfase group and were managed with interruption or slowing of infusion rate or administration of antihistamines or corticosteroids drugs. No deaths occurred during the study.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review are based only on one small study (a 24-week randomised phase of the study and prior to the open-label extension). We are uncertain whether galsulfase is more effective than placebo, for treating people with MPS VI, in relation to the 12-minute walk test or the three-minute stair climb, as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. We found that galsulfase may reduce urinary glycosaminoglycans levels. We are also uncertain whether there are any differences between treatment groups in relation to cardiac or pulmonary functions, liver or spleen volume, overnight apnea-hypopnea, height and weight, quality of life and adverse effects. Further studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of ERT with galsulfase.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary manifestation is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis in people with COVID-19. This disease also causes thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, catheter thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Recent studies have indicated a worse prognosis for people with COVID-19 who developed thromboembolism. Anticoagulants are medications used in the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolic events. Several drugs are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic events, such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential, that may affect the clinical evolution of people with COVID-19. Some practical guidelines address the use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in people with COVID-19, however, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on mortality and the need for respiratory support in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 20 June 2020. We also checked reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants (heparin, vitamin K antagonists, direct anticoagulants, and pentasaccharides) versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and need for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We reported results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. We included seven retrospective NRS (5929 participants), three of which were available as preprints. Studies were conducted in China, Italy, Spain and the USA. All of the studies included people hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. The mean age of participants (reported in 6 studies) ranged from 59 to 72 years. Only three included studies reported the follow-up period, which varied from 8 to 35 days. The studies did not report on most of our outcomes of interest: need for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, DVT, pulmonary embolism, adverse events, and quality of life. Anticoagulants (all types) versus no treatment (6 retrospective NRS, 5685 participants) One study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.66; 2075 participants). One study reported a reduction in mortality only in a subgroup of 395 people who required mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). Three studies reported no differences in mortality (adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.92; 449 participants; unadjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 154 participants and adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.57; 192 participants). One study reported zero events in both intervention groups (42 participants). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was critical and the certainty of the evidence was very low. One NRS reported bleeding events in 3% of the intervention group and 1.9% of the control group (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.71; 2773 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulants versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulants (1 retrospective NRS, 244 participants) The study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) and a lower absolute rate of death in the therapeutic group (34.2% versus 53%). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was serious and the certainty of the evidence was low. The study also reported bleeding events in 31.7% of the intervention group and 20.5% of the control group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.37; low-certainty evidence). Ongoing studies We found 22 ongoing studies in hospital settings (20 RCTs, 14,730 participants; 2 NRS, 997 participants) in 10 different countries (Australia (1), Brazil (1), Canada (2), China (3), France (2), Germany (1), Italy (4), Switzerland (1), UK (1) and USA (6)). Twelve ongoing studies plan to report mortality and six plan to report additional respiratory support. Thirteen studies are expected to be completed in December 2020 (6959 participants), eight in July 2021 (8512 participants), and one in December 2021 (256 participants). Four of the studies plan to include 1000 participants or more. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the risks and benefits of prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19. Since there are 22 ongoing studies that plan to evaluate more than 15,000 participants in this setting, we will add more robust evidence to this review in future updates.

Physical Activity Interventions in Faith-Based Organizations: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered in faith-based organizations. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Cochrane Library, DoPHER, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases until January 2016, without restriction of language or publication date. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials investigating physical activity interventions for adults delivered in faith-based organizations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence interval to estimate the effect of the interventions on measures of physical activity, physical fitness, and health. RESULTS: The review included 18 studies. Study participants were predominantly female, and the majority of trials were conducted in the United States. Study heterogeneity did not allow us to conduct meta-analyses. Although interventions delivered in faith-based organizations increased physical activity and positively influenced measures of health and fitness in participants, the quality of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Faith-based organizations are promising settings to promote physical activity, consequently addressing health disparities. However, high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to adequately assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered in faith-based organizations.

Is surgical debridement necessary in the diabetic foot treated with photodynamic therapy?

Background: Diabetic patients are susceptible to developing foot ulcers with serious complications such as osteomyelitis and amputations. Treatment approaches are still empirical and the benefit of usual procedures such as surgical debridement has not been properly evaluated. Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) is a non-invasive and highly efficient method for the treatment of the diabetic foot, being able to eradicate the infection and to stimulate healing, decreasing considerably the amputation risk. In the day-to-day practice of our service, we have been faced with the question whether debridement is necessary before PDT. In here, we designed a study to answer that question. Methods: Patients were divided in two groups: In one of the groups (n = 17), debridement was performed before PDT and in the other (n = 40) only PDT treatment was performed. PDT sessions were performed once a week in all patients until healing was achieved, as indicated by visual inspection as well as by radiographic and laboratory exams. At the start of the study, the two groups had no statistical differences concerning their clinical features: average age, gender, insulin use, diabetes mellitus onset time and previous amputations. Results: PDT was effective in the treatment of 100% of the patients showing no relapses after one year of follow up. The group submitted to PDT without previous debridement had a statistically significant (p = 0.036, Mann-Whitney) shorter cure time (29 days, ~27%). Conclusion: Our data indicates that debridement is not necessary in the treatment of diabetic foot in patients that have enough peripheral arterial perfusion. In addition, we reproduced previous studies confirming that PDT is an efficient, safe, simple and affordable treatment method for the diabetic foot.

Statins for aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

FDAAA legislation is working, but methodological flaws undermine the reliability of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

The relationship between clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry has placed clinical trials in jeopardy. According to the medical literature, more than 70% of clinical trials are industry-funded. Many of these trials remain unpublished or have methodological flaws that distort their results. In 2007, it was signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), aiming to provide publicly access to a broad range of biomedical information to be made available on the platform ClinicalTrials (available at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov). We accessed ClinicalTrials.gov and evaluated the compliance of researchers and sponsors with the FDAAA. Our sample comprised 243 protocols of clinical trials of biological monoclonal antibodies (mAb) adalimumab, bevacizumab, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. We demonstrate that the new legislation has positively affected transparency patterns in clinical research, through a significant increase in publication and online reporting rates after the enactment of the law. Poorly designed trials, however, remain a challenge to be overcome, due to a high prevalence of methodological flaws. These flaws affect the quality of clinical information available, breaching ethical duties of sponsors and researchers, as well as the human right to health.

Surgical treatment of sleep apnea: association between surgeon/hospital volume with outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To identify the association between surgeon/hospital volume with outcomes in surgical treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in a nationally representative sample. We hypothesized that surgeons/hospitals with lower patient volumes would have: higher mortality rates, longer hospital length of stay (LOS), and higher postoperative complication rates and hospitalization charges. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of the 2007 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. METHODS: We selected 24,298 adults undergoing OSA surgery. The data analysis included trend test, regression, and multivariate models that were adjusted by demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: The patients were mostly White (76.43%), male (78.26%), with a mean age of 46 years. Patients treated by surgeons with low volume of procedures (1 procedure/year) had significantly higher mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] 3.05; confidence interval [CI], 1.96-4.77), longer average LOS (increased until 8.16 hours), and higher hospitalization charges (increased up to $1701.75) versus medium- and high-volume surgeons (2-4 procedures/year; greater than/or equal to 5 procedures/year, respectively). Patients treated at hospitals with low volume of procedures (0-5/year) had significantly higher occurrence of oxygen desaturation (OR, 2.12; CI, 1.50-2.99), longer LOS (increased until almost 2 hours) and higher hospitalization charges (at least $951.50 more expensive) versus patients treated at high-volume hospitals (greater than/or equal to 18 procedures/year). CONCLUSION: Our investigation validates the hypothesis that lower volume standards (surgeon/hospital) are associated with increase of LOS following surgery to treat OSA, as well as lower surgeon volume associated with increase of mortality and hospitalization charges and lower hospital volume with occurrence of oxygen desaturation as postoperative complication.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a systematic review previously published in 2008 about non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). NPPV has been widely used to alleviate signs and symptoms of respiratory distress due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. NPPV prevents alveolar collapse and helps redistribute intra-alveolar fluid, improving pulmonary compliance and reducing the pressure of breathing. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of NPPV in the treatment of adult patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in its acute stage. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 20 April 2011: CENTRAL and DARE, (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 of 4, 2011); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1950 to April 2011); EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to April 2011); CINAHL (1982 to April 2011); and LILACS (1982 to April 2011). We also reviewed reference lists of included studies and contacted experts and equipment manufacturers. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected blinded or unblinded randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, reporting on adult patients with acute or acute-on-chronic cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and where NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care was compared with standard medical care alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected articles and abstracted data using a standardised data collection form. We evaluated study quality with emphasis on allocation concealment, sequence generation allocation, losses to follow-up, outcome assessors, selective outcome reporting and adherence to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies (2916 participants), of generally low or uncertain risk of bias. Compared with standard medical care, NPPV significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89) and endotracheal intubation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75). We found no difference in hospital length of stay with NPPV; however, intensive care unit stay was reduced by 1 day (WMD -0.89 days, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.45). Compared with standard medical care, we did not observe significant increases in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction with NPPV during its application (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.95) or after (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.26). We identified fewer adverse events with NPPV use (in particular progressive respiratory distress and neurological failure (coma)) when compared with standard medical care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NPPV in addition to standard medical care is an effective and safe intervention for the treatment of adult patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The evidence to date on the potential benefit of NPPV in reducing mortality is entirely derived from small-trials and further large-scale trials are needed.

Beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of recurrence; therefore secondary prevention is also important. Many clinical approaches to control risk factors have been proposed. One of these approaches is the prescription of beta-blockers that have effects beyond the reduction of blood pressure, which can reduce the recurrence of stroke. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence and for reducing death and major vascular events in people with a previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and to determine their safety, particularly with regard to the development of diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (December 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (December 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2011), EMBASE (1980 to December 2011), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to December 2011). We also searched ongoing trials registers and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with previous stroke or TIA due to arterial thrombosis or embolism.The intervention was any beta-blocker versus control, or beta-blocker plus other treatment versus other treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs involving 2193 participants in the review. Both studies randomised participants to either beta-blocker (atenolol 5 mg) or placebo. No statistical differences were noted among the groups in risks of fatal and non-fatal stroke (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.17). For all other outcomes analysed (death from all causes, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, major vascular events), we observed no significant differences between the groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, no available evidence supports the routine use of beta-blockers for secondary prevention after stroke or TIA. More studies with larger samples are needed.

Conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal, ligamentous and osseous groin injuries are common in athletes and may result in a delay of several months to resume sports. Even then, this may not be at the former level of sport activity. The treatment of exercise-related groin pain is mainly conservative (non-surgical), using interventions such as exercises, electrotherapy, manual therapy and steroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (December 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1948 to November week 3 2011); EMBASE (1980 to Week 49 2011); CINAHL (1982 to December 2011); LILACS (1982 to December 2011); PEDro (1929 to December 2011), SPORTDiscus (1985 to December 2011), OTseeker (to December 2011), reference lists of papers and conference proceedings (2000 to 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain were included. Studies comparing conservative with surgical treatments were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments. There was no pooling of data. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies, involving a total of 122 participants who had experienced adductor-related groin pain for at least two months, were included in this review. All but one of the participants were male athletes aged between 18 and 50 years old. Both studies were assessed as 'high risk of bias' for at least one source of bias domain. The 'successful treatment' outcome reported in both studies was based primarily on pain measures.One study, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, found a significant difference favouring exercise therapy (strengthening with an emphasis on the adductor and abdominal muscles and training muscular co-ordination) compared with 'conventional' physiotherapy (stretching exercises, electrotherapy and transverse friction massage) in successful treatment at 16-week follow-up (25/34 (74%) versus 10/34 (29%); risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.37, P = 0.001). Similarly, of those followed-up significantly more athletes treated by exercise therapy returned to sport at the same level (23/29 (79%) versus 4/30 (13%); RR 5.95, 95% CI 2.34 to 15.09, P = 0.0002). Although still favouring the exercise group, the differences between the two groups in patients' subjective global assessment at 16 weeks and successful treatment at 8 to 12 years follow-up were not statistically significant.The second study (54 participants) found no significant differences at 16-week follow-up between a multi-modal treatment (heat, manual therapy and stretching) and exercise therapy (the same intervention as in the above study) for the outcomes of successful treatment (14/26 (54%) versus 12/22 (55%); RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.66, P = 0.96) and return to full sports participation (13/26 (50%) versus 12/22 (55%); RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.58, P = 0.75). Those returning to full sports participation returned on average 4.5 weeks earlier after receiving multi-modal therapy (mean difference -4.50 weeks, 95% CI -8.60 to -0.40, P = 0.03) than those in the exercise therapy group. This study reported that there were no complications or side effects found in either intervention group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from the randomized trials is insufficient to advise on any specific conservative modality for treating exercise-related groin pain. While still low quality, the best evidence is from one trial which found that exercise therapy (strengthening of hip and abdominal muscles) in athletes improves short-term outcomes (based primarily on pain measures) and return to sports compared with physiotherapy consisting of passive modalities. Given the low quality of the available evidence from both included trials, further randomized trials are necessary to reinforce their findings.

De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock are highly variable throughout different regions or services and can be upwards of 50%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy, thus reducing mortality; however, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment by using a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by reviewing the patient's microbial culture results and then making changes to the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock caused by any micro-organism. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); MEDLINE via PubMed (from inception to October 2012); EMBASE (from inception to October 2012); LILACS (from inception to October 2012); Current Controlled Trials; bibliographic references of relevant studies; and specialists in the area. We applied no language restriction. We had previously searched the databases to August 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing de-escalation (based on culture results) versus standard therapy for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality (at 28 days, hospital discharge or at the end of the follow-up period). Studies including patients initially treated with an empirical but not adequate antimicrobial therapy were not considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors planned to independently select and extract data and to evaluate methodological quality of all studies. We planned to use relative risk (risk ratio) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use the random-effects statistical model when the estimate effects of two or more studies could be combined in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy retrieved 493 studies. No published RCTs testing de-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic were included in this review. We found one ongoing RCT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no adequate, direct evidence as to whether de-escalation of antimicrobial agents is effective and safe for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. This uncertainty warrants further research via RCTs and the authors are awaiting the results of an ongoing RCT testing the de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy for severe sepsis.

Cyclophosphamide versus methylprednisolone for treating neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is complex and it is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Management of nervous system manifestations of SLE remains unsatisfactory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone in the treatment of neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS and WHO up to and including June 2012. We sought additional articles through handsearching in relevant journals as well as contact with experts. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared cyclophosphamide to methylprednisolone in patients with SLE of any age and gender and presenting with any kind of neuropsychiatric manifestations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted, assessed and cross-checked data. We produced a 'Summary of findings' table. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We did not include any new trials in this update. One randomised controlled trial of 32 patients is included. Concerning risk of bias, generation of the allocation sequence was at low risk; however, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting were at high risk. Treatment response, defined as 20% improvement from basal conditions by clinical, serological and specific neurological measures, was found in 94.7% (18/19) of patients using cyclophosphamide compared with 46.2% (6/13) in the methylprednisolone group at 24 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.73). This was statistically significant and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of treatment response is three. We found no statistically significant differences between the groups in damage index measurements (Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)). The median SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) rating favoured the cyclophosphamide group. Cyclophosphamide use was associated with a reduction in prednisone requirements. All the patients in the cyclophosphamide group had electroencephalographic improvement but there was no statistically significant difference in decrease between groups in the number of monthly seizures. No statistically significant differences in adverse effects, including mortality, were reported between the groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found one randomised controlled trial with a small number of patients in the different clinical subgroups of neurological manifestation. There is very low-quality evidence that cyclophosphamide is more effective in reducing symptoms of neuropsychiatric involvement in SLE compared with methylprednisolone. However, properly designed randomised controlled trials that involve large numbers of individuals, with explicit clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria, sufficient duration of follow-up and description of all relevant outcome measures, are necessary to guide practice. As we did not find any new trials to include in this review at update, the conclusions of the review did not change.

Effectiveness of aerobic physical training for treatment of chronic asymptomatic bacteriuria in subjects with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aerobic physical training for treatment of chronic asymptomatic bacteriuria in subjects with spinal cord injury. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital. SUBJECTS: Forty-two participants with spinal cord injury between C8 and T12 segments were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. INTERVENTION: In the intervention group, subjects received a risk evaluation, stress test and urinary culture before the start of the study and after 16 weeks. The study consisted of aerobic physical conditioning with moderate intensity for the intervention group while the control group was asked to maintain their daily life activities. MAIN MEASURES: Increase of estimated peak oxygen consumption and also if there was a decrease in the proportions of positive urinary culture. RESULTS: The intervention group showed an increase of estimated peak oxygen consumption of between 939 (714-1215) and 1154 (1005-1351) mL/min (P = 0.009) and a reduction of chronic asymptomatic bacteria of between 52.3% (29.8-74.3%) and 14.2% (3-36.3%) (P < 0.001). No adverse effects related to physical activity were recorded during the period of training. CONCLUSION: The regular practice of physical activity of moderate intensity applied to patients with spinal cord injury may be an effective and safe method for the treatment of chronic asymptomatic bacteriuria.

Incentive spirometry for preventing pulmonary complications after coronary artery bypass graft.

BACKGROUND: Incentive spirometry (IS) is a treatment technique that uses a mechanical device to reduce pulmonary complications during postoperative care. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: Update the previously published systematic review to compare the effects of IS for preventing postoperative pulmonary complications in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL and DARE on The Cochrane Library (Issue 2 of 4 2011), MEDLINE OVID (1948 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2011), LILACS (1982 to July 2011) , the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (1980 to July 2011), Allied & Complementary Medicine (AMED) (1985 to May 2011), CINAHL (1982 to May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing IS with any type of prophylactic physiotherapy for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications in adults undergoing CABG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently evaluated trial quality using the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and extracted data from included trials. For continuous outcomes, we used the generic inverse variance method for meta-analysis and for dichotomous data we used the Peto Odds Ratio. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 592 participants from seven studies (two new and one that had been excluded in the previous review in 2007. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in the incidence of any pulmonary complications and functional capacity between treatment with IS and treatment with physical therapy, positive pressure breathing techniques (including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) and intermittent positive pressure breathing (IPPB), active cycle of breathing techniques (ACBT) or preoperative patient education. Patients treated with IS had worse pulmonary function and arterial oxygenation compared with positive pressure breathing. Based on these studies there was no improvement in the muscle strength between groups who received IS demonstrated by maximal inspiratory pressure and maximal expiratory pressure . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our update review suggests there is no evidence of benefit from IS in reducing pulmonary complications and in decreasing the negative effects on pulmonary function in patients undergoing CABG. In view of the modest number of patients studied, methodological shortcomings and poor reporting of the included trials, these results should still be interpreted cautiously. An appropriately powered trial of high methodological rigour is needed to determine if there are patients who may derive benefit from IS following CABG.

Botulinum toxin for myofascial pain syndromes in adults.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a regional muscular pain syndrome characterised by the presence of trigger points, which are painful points in one or more muscles. The pain can be felt at the site where the trigger point is located or it can be felt away from that place when the muscle is pressed (referred pain). Botulinum toxin is a protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum and is a potent neurotoxin that eventually inhibits muscle contractions. It is capable of selectively weakening painful muscles and interrupting the pain cycle. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of botulinum toxin in treating MPS, excluding MPS in neck and head muscles. SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy was composed of terms for myofascial pain and botulinum toxin. We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care (PaPaS) Review Group's Specialised Register until December 2011, CENTRAL (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 4), PUBMED (from 1966 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011) and LILACS (from 1982 to 2011). There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving botulinum toxin for treating participants with MPS. We excluded studies with MPS of the neck and head from this review, as they have already been assessed in existing systematic reviews. We considered a diagnosis of MPS to be based on the identification of trigger points in the taut band through palpation of sensitive nodules, local twitch response and specific patterns of referred pain associated with each trigger point. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened identified studies, extracted data, assessed trial quality and analysed results using the Cochrane PaPaS Review Group criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 233 participants, comparing botulinum toxin A (BTXA) with placebo, met the inclusion criteria. In one study with 145 participants, a significant improvement rate of pain intensity scores, as shown by the mean difference (MD) of -0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -0.20; P value < 0.00001) and duration of daily pain (MD -1.11; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.85; P value < 0.00001), was demonstrated when comparing BTXA with placebo. The three other studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between BTXA and placebo in pain intensity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence to support the use of botulinum toxin in the treatment of MPS based on data from four studies with a total of 233 participants, which we considered adequate to be included in this review. Meta-analyses were not possible due to the heterogeneity between studies. We suggest that in future studies the same methodology to assess pain, a standardised dose of treatment, follow-up of at least four months (to observe the maximum/minimum curve of the drug effect) and appropriate data presentation should be used. More high-quality RCTs of botulinum toxin for treating MPS need to be conducted before firm conclusions on its effectiveness and safety can be drawn.

Surgery for congenital choanal atresia.

BACKGROUND: Congenital choanal atresia is a rare abnormality characterized by unilateral or bilateral lack of patency of the posterior end of the nasal cavity. With an incidence of 1:5000 to 1:8000 births, it is twice as prevalent in females as it is in males. Surgical procedures aim to provide adequate functional choanal patency and a low rate of restenosis, avoid harm to any structure in development, enable shorter surgery and hospitalization times, and minimize morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the available surgical techniques for the treatment of congenital choanal atresia in patients with unilateral and bilateral atresia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 31 January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include parallel randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials testing surgical approaches for the treatment of congenital atresia (irrespective of gender and age) that evaluated normal/adequate respiratory function (self reported or preserved nasal airway) and restenosis as the main primary outcomes. We did not consider reoperation and non-congenital atresia (e.g. traumatic, iatrogenic atresias) for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of the identified articles to determine potential relevance. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we planned to calculate risk ratios (relative risks; RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), respectively. We planned to use the random-effects model since we were expecting substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: No randomized controlled trials were identified. From the 120 reports retrieved using our search strategy, 46 primary studies had the potential to be included since they had tested surgical approaches for choanal atresia. However, we excluded all of them during the final selection process because their study designs did not meet our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no definitive evidence, based on randomized controlled trials, to demonstrate the potential advantages and disadvantages of any specific surgical technique for patients with choanal atresia. Specialists should unify their efforts in multicenter randomized controlled trials that test the effectiveness and safety of different surgical techniques in patients with choanal atresia.