Cochrane Register Of Studies Online Research Articles

P-468 Personalized embryo transfer guided by transcriptomic endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) in infertile patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Study question What is the effectiveness of a personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by an endometrial receptivity test in assisted reproduction? Summary answer We have not found evidence supporting the routine use of a personalized embryo transfer guided by an endometrial receptivity test in any case yet. What is known already Currently, the outcomes of good quality embryo transfers are far from ideal. Clinical focus is shifting towards other actors that could play a key role in the good-quality embryos implantation failure, such as the endometrial preparation and the achievement of an embryo-endometrium synchrony, so that the embryo has a better chance to implant during the window of implantation (WOI). Today, there is a wide range of different endometrial receptivity tests that use different sets of genes to identify patients with displacements of their WOI in order to adjust the individual length of progesterone exposure in a personalized embryo transfer (pET). Study design, size, duration This is systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE). The protocol has been sent for registration to PROSPERO (CRD42022299827). We included studies that compared women that were tested with transcriptomic endometrial receptivity tests versus those that were not tested. We only included comparative studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and retrospective and prospective cohorts. Participants/materials, setting, methods Participants were women undergoing an infertility treatment (both with own or donor gametes), with or without repeated implantation failure (RIF), with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Each of the above-mentioned populations was analyzed separately as different subgroups. Electronic searches in CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), PubMed, and Embase were performed from inception to October 2022. Screening, study inclusion and data extraction was performed by pairs of independent reviewers. Main results and the role of chance We included 35 studies. Two of them were RCTs and 25 were cohort studies that compared pET guided by an endometrial receptivity tests guided versus sET in women with non-tested endometrium. Besides, we included 16 studies that compared women with sET with a receptive endometrium versus pET in women with non-receptive endometrium. And we included three studies that compared pET guided by an endometrial receptivity test in a specific population of women (RIF or adenomyosis) versus a control population. The two RCTs included women with no history of RIF. In non-RIF women, no important differences (moderate-CoE) were found in live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). In that population, cumulative CPR may be higher with pET (RR 1.15, 95%CI 1.00-1.34; low-CoE) but no differences were found in cumulative LBR. Seven cohort studies that adjusted by confounding were meta-analyzed. In RIF, pET may improve the CPR (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.42-4.40; low-CoE) but, in agreement with the RCTs, no benefits were found in non-RIF. In summary, routine use of pET guided by endometrial receptivity tests is not supported by current published evidence in non-RIF women. However, low-CoE suggests that it may be useful in RIF. Limitations, reasons for caution Most data come from non-RCTs which increases the risk of bias. Besides, the large heterogeneity found in the population, interventions and comparisons led to large imprecision due to the few studies per analyzed strata. It is important to avoid the extrapolation of the results to any different setting. Wider implications of the findings Routine use of pET guided by endometrial receptivity tests is not supported by current published evidence in non-RIF women. However, low-CoE suggests that it may be useful in RIF. Better designed studies are needed to find out if any of these tests work in any specific population. Trial registration number not applicable

The effect of hyaluronic acid in embryo transfer media in donor oocyte cycles and autologous oocyte cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Does the addition of hyaluronic acid (HA) to embryo transfer medium improve pregnancy outcomes in both autologous and oocyte donation IVF cycles? The best available evidence indicates that the addition of HA to embryo transfer medium is clinically beneficial in cycles with autologous oocytes. There is a known clinical benefit of HA addition to embryo transfer media but it is not known if HA affects donor and autologous oocyte cycles differently. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO electronic databases (until 8 January 2020) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of HA in embryo transfer medium on pregnancy outcomes. RCTs with separate donor and autologous oocyte data that compared embryo transfer medium with functional HA concentrations (0.5 mg/ml) to those containing no or low HA concentrations (0.125 mg/ml) were included. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Pooled risk ratios and 95% CIs were calculated. A summary of findings table was generated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Judgements about evidence quality were justified and incorporated into the reported results for each outcome. Fifteen studies, totalling 4686 participants, were analysed. In autologous oocyte cycles, live birth increased from 32% to 39% when embryo transfer media contained functional HA concentrations (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.34; nine studies, 3215 participants, I2 = 39%, moderate-quality evidence (number needed to treat (NNT) 14). HA-enriched media increased clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates by 5% and 8%, respectively (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.18; 13 studies, 4014 participants, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence, NNT 21) and (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.27-1.76; 5 studies, 2400 participants, I2 = 21%, moderate-quality evidence, number needed to harm 13). Conversely, in donor oocyte cycles, HA addition showed little effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.12 95% CI 0.86-1.44; two studies, 317 participants, I2 = 50%, low-quality evidence) and (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.28; three studies, 351 participants, I2 = 23%, low-quality evidence). There was insufficient available information on multiple pregnancy in donor oocyte cycles and on total adverse effects in both groups to draw conclusions. There were limited studies with separate data on donor oocyte cycles and limited information on oocyte quality. Additionally, one-third of the included studies did not include the main outcome, live birth rate. There is a moderate level of evidence to suggest that functional HA concentration in embryo transfer medium increases clinical pregnancy, live birth and multiple pregnancy rates in IVF cycles using autologous oocytes. This effect was not seen in donor oocyte cycles, indicating either intrinsic differences between donor and autologous oocytes or lack of statistical power. The combination of HA addition to transfer media in cycles using autologous oocytes and a single embryo transfer policy might yield the best combination, with higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates without increasing the chance of multiple pregnancies. No financial assistance was received. The authors have no competing interests. N/A.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults.

Metformin treatment before and during IVF or ICSI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates. To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRALvia the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020). Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment. women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment. live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I2 = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I2 = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I2 = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I2 = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision. This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.

Vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary emboli (PE), or blood clots in the lungs,can be potentially fatal. Anticoagulation is the first line therapy to prevent PE. In some instances anticoagulation fails to prevent more emboli, or cannot be given because the person has a high risk of bleeding. Inferior vena caval filters (VCFs) are metal alloy devices that mechanically trap fragmented emboli from the deep leg veins en route to the pulmonary circulation. Retrievable filters are designed to be introduced and removed percutaneously. Although their deployment seems of theoretical benefit, their clinical efficacy and adverse event profile is unclear. This is the third update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. To assess the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vena caval filters (VCFs) in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE). For this review update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 10 September 2019) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2019, Issue 8) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online. The CIS also searched MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (1 January 2017 to 10 September 2019) and trials registries to 10 September 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that examined the efficacy of VCFs in preventing PE. For this update, studies were assessed and data extracted independently. We assessed study quality with Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. The outcomes of interest were PE, mortality, lower limb venous thrombosis, filter-related complications and major bleeding. We identified four new studies for this update, bringing the total to six included studies involving 1388 participants. The six studies were clinically heterogeneous and we were unable to carry out meta-analysis. Only two studies were considered to be both applicable in current clinical settings and of good methodological quality. One was a randomised open-label trial studying the effect of a retrievable inferior vena caval filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in 399 participants over three months. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of PE, death, lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or bleeding at three and six months after the intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). A filter was inserted in 193 people, but could only be successfully retrieved from 153. Minor filter complications were noted at six months. The second clinically relevant study was a randomised open-label trial of 240 participants who had sustained multiple traumatic injuries, allocated to a filter or no filter, three days after injury, in conjunction with anticoagulation and intermittent pneumatic compression. Prophylactic anticoagulation was initiated in both groups when it was thought safe to do so. There was no evidence of a difference in symptomatic PE, death, or lower limb venous thrombosis rates (moderate-certainty evidence). The only major filter complication was that one person required surgical removal of the filter. We are unable to draw any conclusions from the remaining four included studies. One study showed an increased incidence of long-term lower extremity DVT at eight years. Three studies are no longer clinically applicable because they utilised permanent filters which are seldom used now, or they did not use routine prophylactic anticoagulation which is current standard practice. The fourth study compared two filter types and was terminated prematurely as one filter group had a higher rate of thrombosis compared to the other filter type. Two of the six identified studies were relevant for current clinical settings. One showed no evidence of a benefit of retrievable filters in acute PE for the outcomes of PE, death, DVT and bleeding during the initial three months in people who can receive anticoagulation (moderate-certainty evidence). The other study did not show any benefit for prophylactic filter insertion in people who sustained multiple traumatic injuries, with respect to symptomatic PE, mortality, or lower extremity venous thrombosis (moderate-certainty evidence). We can draw no firm conclusions regarding filter efficacy in the prevention of PE from the remaining four RCTs identified in this review. Further trials are needed to assess vena caval filter effectiveness and safety, and clinical differences between various filter types.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Ketogenic diets for drug-resistant epilepsy.

Ketogenic diets (KDs), being high in fat and low in carbohydrates, have been suggested to reduce seizure frequency in people with epilepsy. At present, such diets are mainly recommended for children who continue to have seizures despite treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (drug-resistant epilepsy). Recently, there has been interest in less restrictive KDs, including the modified Atkins diet (MAD), and the use of these diets has extended into adult practice. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and last updated in 2016. To assess the effects of KDs for drug-resistant epilepsy by reviewing the evidence from randomised controlled trials. For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (11 April 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 11 April 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 11 April 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (11 April 2017) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 11 April 2017). We imposed no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ketogenic diets for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to extract data and assessed study quality. We identified 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that generated 15 publications.All trials applied an intention-to-treat analysis with varied randomisation methods. The 11 studies recruited 778 patients; 712 children and adolescents and 66 adults. We assessed all 11 studies to be at low to unclear risk of bias for the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment and selective reporting. For the other domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, other bias) assessments were varied (low, unclear and high risk of bias). We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the studies and the quality of the evidence was low to very low (GRADE ratings).Reported rates of seizure freedom reached as high as 55% in a classical 4:1 KD group after three months and reported rates of seizure reduction reached as high as 85% in a classical 4:1 KD group after three months (GRADE rating low).One trial found no significant difference between the fasting-onset and gradual-onset KD for rates of seizure freedom, and reported a greater rate of seizure reduction in the gradual-onset KD group.Studies assessing the efficacy of the MAD reported seizure freedom rates of up to 25% and seizure reduction rates of up to 60% in children. One study used a simplified MAD (sMAD) and reported seizure freedom rates of 15% and seizure reduction rates of 56% in children. One study utilised a MAD in adults and reported seizure reduction rates of 35%, but no patients became seizure free (GRADE rating low).Adverse effects of the dietary interventions were experienced in all studies. The most commonly reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal syndromes. It was common that adverse effects were the reason for participants dropping out of trials (GRADE rating low). Other reasons for dropout included lack of efficacy and non-acceptance of the diet (GRADE rating low).Although there was some evidence for greater antiepileptic efficacy for a classical 4:1 KD over lower ratios, the classical 4:1 KD was consistently associated with more adverse effects.One study assessed the effect of dietary interventions on quality of life, cognition and behavioural functioning, reporting participants in the KD group to be more active, more productive and less anxious after four months, compared to the control group. However, no significant difference was found in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the KD group and control group at four or 16 months (GRADE rating very low). The RCTs discussed in this review show promising results for the use of KDs in epilepsy. However, the limited number of studies, small sample sizes and the limited studies in adults, resulted in a low to very low overall quality of evidence.There were adverse effects within all of the studies and for all KD variations, such as short-term gastrointestinal-related disturbances and increased cholesterol. However, study periods were short, therefore the long-term risks associated with these adverse effects is unknown. Attrition rates remained a problem with all KDs and across all studies; reasons for this being lack of observed efficacy and dietary tolerance.Only one study reported the use of KDs in adults with epilepsy; therefore further research would be of benefit.Other more palatable but related diets, such as the MAD, may have a similar effect on seizure control as the classical KD, but this assumption requires more investigation. For people who have medically intractable epilepsy or people who are not suitable for surgical intervention, KDs remain a valid option; however, further research is required.

Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.

The rate of successful pregnancies brought to term has barely increased since the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) technique became available. Vasodilators have been proposed to increase endometrial receptivity, thicken the endometrium, and favour uterine relaxation, all of which could improve uterine receptivity and enhance the chances for successful assisted pregnancy. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vasodilators in women undergoing fertility treatment. We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of of Controlled Trials, via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the search in October 2017 and applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vasodilators alone or in combination with other treatments versus placebo or no treatment or versus other agents in women undergoing fertility treatment. Four review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and calculated risk ratios (RRs). We combined study data using a fixed-effect model and assessed evidence quality using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and vasodilator side effects. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, endometrial thickness, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy. We included 15 studies with a total of 1326 women. All included studies compared a vasodilator versus placebo or no treatment. We judged most of these studies as having unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes. The main limitations were imprecision due to low numbers of events and participants and risk of bias due to unclear methods of randomisation.Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of live birth compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.69; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) but probably increase overall rates of side effects including headache and tachycardia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.66; four RCTs; N = 418; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 236 per 1000 women achieve live birth with placebo or no treatment, then between 196 and 398 per 1000 will do so with the use of vasodilators.Compared with placebo or no treatment, vasodilators may slightly improve clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77; 11 RCTs; N = 1054; I² = 6%; low-quality evidence). Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of multiple gestation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.42; three RCTs; N = 370; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), miscarriage (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.69; two RCTs; N = 250; I² = 5%; low-quality evidence). All studies found benefit for endometrial thickening, but reported effects varied (I² = 92%) and ranged from a mean difference of 0.80 higher (95% CI 0.18 to 1.42) to 3.57 higher (95% CI 3.01 to 4.13) with very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain how to interpret these results. Evidence was insufficient to show whether vasodilators increase the live birth rate in women undergoing fertility treatment. However, low-quality evidence suggests that vasodilators may slightly increase clinical pregnancy rates. Moderate-quality evidence shows that vasodilators increase overall side effects in comparison with placebo or no treatment. Adequately powered studies are needed so that each treatment can be evaluated more accurately.

Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Clonazepam add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy in adults and children.

Epilepsy affects about 50 million people worldwide, nearly a quarter of whom have drug-refractory epilepsy. People with drug-refractory epilepsy have increased risks of premature death, injuries, psychosocial dysfunction, and a reduced quality of life. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam when used as an add-on therapy for adults and children with refractory focal onset or generalised onset epileptic seizures, when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic agent. We searched the following databases on 14 September 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 14 September 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Double-blind randomised controlled studies of add-on clonazepam in people with refractory focal or generalised onset seizures, with a minimum treatment period of eight weeks. The studies could be of parallel or cross-over design. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted relevant data, and assessed trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional information. No double-blind randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. There is no evidence from double-blind randomised controlled trials for or against the use of clonazepam as an add-on therapy for adults and children with refractory focal or generalised onset epileptic seizures.

Rufinamide add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy.

Background Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication, when used as an add‐on treatment for refractory epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox‐Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add‐on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures.

Drug management for acute tonic-clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children.

Drug management for acute tonic-clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children.

Bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults.

Acquired hearing loss is common and its incidence increases markedly with age. In most people, 'age-related' hearing loss is sensorineural (due to the loss of cochlear hair cells) and bilateral, affecting both ears to the same degree. Hearing loss categorised as mild, moderate or severe is primarily managed with hearing aids. People with bilateral hearing loss may be offered one aid, fitted to one specific ear, or two aids fitted to both ears. There is uncertainty about the relative benefits to people with hearing loss of these different strategies. To assess the effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids in adults with a bilateral hearing impairment. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies Online; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 8 June 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the fitting of two versus one ear-level acoustic hearing aids in adults (over 18 years) with a bilateral hearing impairment, both ears being eligible for hearing aids. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were patient preference for bilateral or unilateral aids, hearing-specific health-related quality of life and adverse effects (pain or discomfort in the ear, initiation or exacerbation of middle or outer ear infection). Secondary outcomes included: usage of hearing aids (as measured by, for example, data logging or battery consumption), generic health-related quality of life, listening ability and audiometric benefit measured as binaural loudness summation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. We included four cross-over RCTs with a total of 209 participants, ranging in age from 23 to 85 and with a preponderance of men. All the studies allowed the use of hearing aids for a total period of at least eight weeks before questions on preference were asked. All studies recruited patients with bilateral hearing loss but there was considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.Three of the studies were published before the mid-1990s whereas the fourth study was published in 2011. Therefore, only the most recent study used hearing aids incorporating technology comparable to that currently readily available in high-income settings. Of the four studies, two were conducted in the UK in National Health Service (NHS - public sector) patients: one recruited patients from primary care with hearing loss detected by a screening programme whereas the other recruited patients who had been referred by their primary care practitioner to an otolaryngology department for hearing aids. The other two studies were conducted in the United States: one study recruited only military personnel or veterans with noise-induced hearing loss whereas about half of the participants in the other study were veterans.Only one primary outcome (patient preference) was reported in all studies. The percentage of patients who preferred bilateral hearing aids varied between studies: this was 54% (51 out of 94 participants), 39% (22 out of 56), 55% (16 out of 29) and 77% (23 out of 30), respectively. We have not combined the data from these four studies. The evidence for this outcome is of very low quality.The other outcomes of interest were not reported in the included studies. This review identified only four studies comparing the use of one hearing aid with two. The studies were small and included participants of widely varying ages. There was also considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.For the most part, the types of hearing aid evaluated would now be regarded, in high-income settings, as 'old technology', with only one study looking at 'modern' digital aids. However, the relevance of this is uncertain, as this review did not evaluate the differences in outcomes between the different types of technology.We were unable to pool data from the four studies and the very low quality of the evidence leads us to conclude that we do not know if people with hearing loss have a preference for one aid or two. Similarly, we do not know if hearing-specific health-related quality of life, or any of our other outcomes, are better with bilateral or unilateral aids.

EEG for children with complex febrile seizures.

Febrile seizures can be classified as simple or complex. Complex febrile seizures are associated with fever that lasts longer than 15 minutes, occur more than once within 24 hours, and are confined to one side of the child's body. It is common in some countries for doctors to recommend an electroencephalograph (EEG) for children with complex febrile seizures. A limited evidence base is available to support the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children. To assess the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children younger than five years of age. For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (23 January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 January 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 23 January 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 January 2017). We applied no language restrictions. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the utility of an EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children. The review authors selected and retrieved the articles and independently assessed which articles should be included. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and by consultation with the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Of 41 potentially eligible studies, no RCTs met the inclusion criteria. We found no RCTs as evidence to support or refute the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children. An RCT can be planned in such a way that participants are randomly assigned to the EEG group and to the non-EEG group with sufficient sample size. Since the last version of this review, we have found no new studies.

Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.

The main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life. To evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. We included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence). The available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Intravenous immunoglobulins for epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, with an estimated incidence of 50 per 100,000 persons. People with epilepsy may present with various types of immunological abnormalities, such as low serum immunoglobulin A (IgA) levels, lack of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass and identification of certain types of antibodies. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment may represent a valuable approach and its efficacy has important implications for epilepsy management. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2011. To examine the effects of IVIg on the frequency and duration of seizures, quality of life and adverse effects when used as monotherapy or as add-on treatment for people with epilepsy. For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (2 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2 February 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 2 February 2017), Web of Science (1898 to 2 February 2017), ISRCTN registry (2 February 2017), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 2 February 2017), the US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov (2 February 2017), and reference lists of articles. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of IVIg as monotherapy or add-on treatment in people with epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Outcomes included percentage of people rendered seizure-free, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and quality of life. We included one study (61 participants). The included study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial which compared the treatment efficacy of IVIg as an add-on with a placebo add-on in patients with refractory epilepsy. There was no significant difference between IVIg and placebo in 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. The study reported a statistically significant effect for global assessment in favour of IVIg. No adverse effects were demonstrated. We found no randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of IVIg monotherapy for epilepsy. Overall, the included study was rated as low/unclear risk of bias. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was rated as low. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions regarding the efficacy of IVIg as a treatment for epilepsy. Further randomized controlled trials are needed.

Antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of infants with severe myoclonic epilepsy.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 10.Severe myoclonic epilepsy in infants (SMEI), also known as Dravet syndrome, is a rare, refractory form of epilepsy, for which stiripentol (STP) has been recently licensed as add-on therapy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of STP and other antiepileptic drug treatments (including ketogenic diet) for patients with SMEI. For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (20 December 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 20 December 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 December 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (20 December 2016). Previously we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP, but this was not usable at the time of this update. We also searched the bibliographies of identified studies for additional references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings and imposed no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials; double- or single-blinded or unblinded trials; and parallel-group studies. Administration of at least one antiepileptic drug therapy given singly (monotherapy) or in combination (add-on therapy) compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment. Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to predefined criteria, extracted relevant data and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse effects, proportion of dropouts and quality of life. We assessed outcomes by using a Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found. Specifically, we found no RCTs assessing drugs other than STP. The review includes two RCTs evaluating use of STP (total of 64 children). Both studies were generally at unclear risk of bias. A significantly higher proportion of participants had 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency in the STP group compared with the placebo group (22/33 versus 2/31; RR 10.40, 95% CI 2.64 to 40.87). A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved seizure freedom in the STP group compared with the placebo group (12/33 versus 1/31; RR 7.93, 95% CI 1.52 to 41.21). Investigators found no significant differences in proportions of dropouts from the STP group compared with the placebo group (2/33 versus 8/31; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03). Only one study explicitly reported the occurrence of side effects, noting that higher proportions of participants in the STP group experienced side effects than in the placebo group (100% versus 25%; RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.81 to 7.67). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, as most information is from studies judged to be at an unclear risk of bias. Data derived from two small RCTs indicate that STP is significantly better than placebo with regards to 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom. Adverse effects occurred more frequently with STP. Additional adequately powered studies with long-term follow-up should be conducted to unequivocally establish the long-term efficacy and tolerability of STP in the treatment of patients with SMEI.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Ethosuximide, sodium valproate or lamotrigine for absence seizures in children and adolescents.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review originally published in 2003, Issue 3, and updated in 2005, Issue 4.Absence seizures are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with typical absence seizures. To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures, when compared with placebo or each other. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (1 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1 September 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 September 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (1 September 2016). Previously we searched Embase (1988 to March 2005) and SCOPUS (1823 to 31 March 2014). No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively. Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with absence seizures: ethosuximide; sodium valproate; lamotrigine; or placebo. Outcome measures were: (1) proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; (2) people with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (3) normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and (4) adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Eight small trials were found (three of them not included in the previous version of the review). Six of them were of poor methodological quality and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support a specific effect on absence seizures for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, the freedom-from-failure rates for ethosuximide and valproic acid (VPA) were similar and were higher than the rate for lamotrigine. The frequency of treatment failures due to lack of seizure control (P < 0.001) and intolerable adverse events (P < 0.037) was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of lack of seizure control in the lamotrigine cohort, and the largest proportion of adverse events in the VPA group. Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and VPA compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with absence seizures. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.