Sleep quality and mental health status of healthcare professionals during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

To investigate the sleep quality and mental health status of healthcare professionals during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in order to promote timely intervention and treatment. An Questionnaire Star of WeChat online survey was conducted at Hwamei Hospital, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, NingBo, China. The questionnaire consisted of two parts including sociodemographic characteristics, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale, a depression screening scale (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) so as to investigate the sleep quality and mental health status of healthcare professionals during the outbreak of COVID-19.The data were analyzed with the t-test, χ2 test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson correlation, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The mean score of PSQI is 5.8 ± 3.7 and the incidence of sleep disorders was 28.8% among the healthcare professionals and was related to occupation, title, education level, role and some underlying diseases. The positive rates for anxiety and depression among the healthcare professionals were 33.2% and 39.4% according to the GAD-7 and PHQ-9. Mental health status was related to occupation, education level, role and some underlying diseases. During the COVID-19 outbreak, sleep quality was significantly correlated with anxiety and depression among the healthcare professionals. The incidences of sleep disorder, anxiety and depression among healthcare professionals have been high. Furthermore, these disorders are interrelated and require timely intervention and treatment.

Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a review first published in 2011, and last updated in 2017. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, but up to 30% of people continue to have seizures despite several regimens of antiepileptic drugs. In this review, we summarized the current evidence regarding eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ESL when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following databases on 10 September 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted the manufacturers of ESL and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized placebo-controlled double-blind add-on trials of ESL in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects and drug interactions. Primary analyses were by intention to treat (ITT). The dose-response relationship was evaluated in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (2185 participants, aged 2 to 77 years), which were at low or unclear risk of bias apart from a high risk of attrition bias; all studies were funded by the pharmaceutical company, BIAL. The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 1.83). For adults, the RR was 1.71 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.05; 5 studies, 1799 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); for children aged six to 18 years, the RR was 1.35 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.87; 2 studies, 322 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis showed evidence that ESL reduced seizure frequency with an increase in efficacy with increasing doses of ESL. ESL was associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.78; 6 studies, 1922 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to have ESL withdrawn for adverse effects (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.46; 7 studies, 2185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not for any reason (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.70; 7 studies, 2185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The following adverse effects were associated with ESL: dizziness (RR 2.77, 99% CI 1.85 to 4.15); nausea (RR 2.55, 99% CI 1.39 to 4.67); somnolence (RR 1.75, 99% CI 1.18 to 2.61); diplopia (RR 4.07, 99% CI 1.86 to 8.89); and vomiting (RR 2.37, 99% CI 1.19 to 4.74). Overall, the certainty of the evidence was moderate due to a high discontinuation rate in studies of adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESL reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The trials included in this review were of short-term duration. In addition, this update found that ESL may reduce seizure frequency in children from 6 to 18 years of age; however the results are inconclusive.

Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12.The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, but up to 30% of people continue to have seizures despite several regimens of antiepileptic drugs. In this review, we summarized the current evidence regarding eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ESL when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: The searches for the original review were run in November 2011. Subsequently, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (6 December 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11) and MEDLINE (1946 to 6 December 2016). There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of ESL and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized placebo controlled double-blind add-on trials of ESL in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, and drug interactions. Primary analyses were by intention to treat (ITT). The dose-response relationship was evaluated in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (1799 participants) rated at low risk of bias; all studies were funded by BIAL. The overall risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.71 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.05). Dose regression analysis showed evidence that ESL reduced seizure frequency with an increase in efficacy with increasing doses of ESL. ESL was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.68). Participants were more likely to have ESL withdrawn for adverse effects (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.96) but not for any reason (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.64). The following adverse effects were significantly associated with ESL: dizziness (RR 2.81, 99% CI 1.86 to 4.27); nausea (RR 2.61, 99% CI 1.36 to 5.01); diplopia (RR 4.14, 99% CI 1.74 to 9.84); somnolence (RR 1.71, 99% CI 1.11 to 2.63) and vomiting (RR 3.30, 99% CI 1.34 to 8.13). Overall the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESL reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. The trials included in this review were of short-term duration and focused on adults. One new trial has been included in this update, but the conclusions are unchanged.