Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies for idiopathic inflammatory myopathies

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

This protocol is for two separate reviews to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.  

Pharmacological treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Disease-modifying pharmacological agents for transthyretin (TTR)-related familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) have become available in the last decade, but evidence on their efficacy and safety is limited. This review focuses on disease-modifying pharmacological treatment for TTR-related and other FAPs, encompassing amyloid kinetic stabilisers, amyloid matrix solvents, and amyloid precursor inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of disease-modifying pharmacological agents for familial amyloid polyneuropathies (FAPs).

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We reviewed reference lists of articles and textbooks on peripheral neuropathies. We also contacted experts in the field. We searched clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs investigating any disease-modifying pharmacological agent in adults with FAPs. Disability due to FAP progression was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were severity of peripheral neuropathy, change in modified body mass index (mBMI), quality of life, severity of depression, mortality, and adverse events during the trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included four RCTs involving 655 people with TTR-FAP. The manufacturers of the drugs under investigation funded three of the studies. The trials investigated different drugs versus placebo and we did not conduct a meta-analysis. One RCT compared tafamidis with placebo in early-stage TTR-FAP (128 randomised participants). The trial did not explore our predetermined disability outcome measures. After 18 months, tafamidis might reduce progression of peripheral neuropathy slightly more than placebo (Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) in the lower limbs; mean difference (MD) -3.21 points, 95% confidential interval (CI) -5.63 to -0.79; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). However, tafamidis might lead to little or no difference in the change of quality of life between groups (Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QOL-DN) total score; MD -4.50 points, 95% CI -11.27 to 2.27; P = 0.19; very low-certainty evidence). No clear between-group difference was found in the numbers of participants who died (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.74; P = 0.63; very low-certainty evidence), who dropped out due to adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.54; P = 0.73; very low-certainty evidence), or who experienced at least one severe adverse event during the trial (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.62; P = 0.79; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared diflunisal with placebo (130 randomised participants). At month 24, diflunisal might reduce progression of disability (Kumamoto Score; MD -4.90 points, 95% CI -7.89 to -1.91; P = 0.002; low-certainty evidence) and peripheral neuropathy (NIS plus 7 nerve tests; MD -18.10 points, 95% CI -26.03 to -10.17; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence) more than placebo. After 24 months, changes from baseline in the quality of life measured by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score showed no clear difference between groups for the physical component (MD 6.10 points, 95% CI 2.56 to 9.64; P = 0.001; very low-certainty evidence) and the mental component (MD 4.40 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 8.99; P = 0.063; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear between-group difference in the number of people who died (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.41; P = 0.17; very low-certainty evidence), in the number of dropouts due to adverse events (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.87; P = 0.39; very low-certainty evidence), and in the number of people who experienced at least one severe adverse event (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.32; P = 0.73; very low-certainty evidence) during the trial. One RCT compared patisiran with placebo (225 randomised participants). After 18 months, patisiran reduced both progression of disability (Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale; least-squares MD 8.90 points, 95% CI 7.00 to 10.80; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) and peripheral neuropathy (modified NIS plus 7 nerve tests - Alnylam version; least-squares MD -33.99 points, 95% CI -39.86 to -28.13; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) more than placebo. At month 18, the change in quality of life between groups favoured patisiran (Norfolk QOL-DN total score; least-squares MD -21.10 points, 95% CI -27.20 to -15.00; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no between-group difference in the number of participants who died (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.74; P = 0.35; low-certainty evidence), dropped out due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.82; P = 0.017; low-certainty evidence), or experienced at least one severe adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; P = 0.58; low-certainty evidence) during the trial. One RCT compared inotersen with placebo (172 randomised participants). The trial did not explore our predetermined disability outcome measures. From baseline to week 66, inotersen reduced progression of peripheral neuropathy more than placebo (modified NIS plus 7 nerve tests - Ionis version; MD -19.73 points, 95% CI -26.50 to -12.96; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence). At week 65, the change in quality of life between groups favoured inotersen (Norfolk QOL-DN total score; MD -10.85 points, 95% CI -17.25 to -4.45; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). Inotersen may slightly increase mortality (RR 5.94, 95% CI 0.33 to 105.60; P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence) and occurrence of severe adverse events (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.57; P = 0.16; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. More dropouts due to adverse events were observed in the inotersen than in the placebo group (RR 8.57, 95% CI 1.16 to 63.07; P = 0.035; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies addressing apolipoprotein AI-FAP, gelsolin-FAP, and beta-2-microglobulin-FAP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the pharmacological treatment of FAPs from RCTs is limited to TTR-FAP. No studies directly compare disease-modifying pharmacological treatments for TTR-FAP. Results from placebo-controlled trials indicate that tafamidis, diflunisal, patisiran, and inotersen may be beneficial in TTR-FAP, but further investigations are needed. Since direct comparative studies for TTR-FAP will be hampered by sample size and costs required to demonstrate superiority of one drug over another, long-term non-randomised open-label studies monitoring their efficacy and safety are needed.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013, and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We found six trials of five different interventions eligible for inclusion in this review. The trials were conducted in hospitals in Canada, China, Germany, Japan and the UK, and included 151 participants in total. All trials randomised participants aged 16 years and older (mean or median age in the trials ranged from 36 to 57 years in the intervention groups and 34 to 60 years in the control groups) with severe GBS, defined by the inability to walk unaided. One trial also randomised patients with mild GBS who were still able to walk unaided. We identified two new trials at this update.The primary outcome measure for this review was improvement in disability grade four weeks after randomisation. Four of six trials had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. We assessed all evidence for the outcome mean improvement in disability grade as very low certainty, which means that we were unable to draw any conclusions from the data. One RCT with 19 participants compared interferon beta-1a (IFNb-1a) and placebo. It is uncertain whether IFNb-1a improves disability after four weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.1; 95% CI -1.58 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 10 participants compared brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BNDF) and placebo. It is uncertain whether BDNF improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 37 participants compared cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) filtration and plasma exchange. It is uncertain whether CSF filtration improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.66; very low-certainty evidence). One trial that compared the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside with corticosteroids with 43 participants did not report the risk ratio (RR) for an improvement by one or more disability grade after four weeks, but did report improvement after eight weeks. It is uncertain whether tripterygium polyglycoside improves disability after eight weeks (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). We performed a meta-analysis of two trials comparing eculizumab and placebo with 41 participants. It is uncertain whether eculizumab improves disability after four weeks (MD -0.23; 95% CI -1.79 to 1.34; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were uncommon in each of the trials and evidence was graded as either low or very low. It is uncertain whether serious adverse events were more common with IFNb-1a versus placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.72; 19 participants), BNDF versus placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.54; 10 participants) or CSF filtration versus plasma exchange (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.25; 37 participants). The trial of tripterygium polyglycoside did not report serious adverse events. There may be no clear difference in the number of serious adverse events after eculizumab compared to placebo (RR 1.90, 0.34 to 10.50; 41 participants). We found no clinically important differences in any of the outcome measures selected for this review in any of the six trials. However, sample sizes were small and therefore clinically important benefit or harm cannot be excluded.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All six RCTs were too small to exclude clinically important benefit or harm from the assessed interventions. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all interventions and outcomes.

Drug treatment for spinal muscular atrophy types II and III

BACKGROUND

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.

Cell-based therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is a fatal disease associated with rapidly progressive disability, for which no definitive treatment exists. Current treatment approaches largely focus on relieving symptoms to improve the quality of life of those affected. The therapeutic potential of cell-based therapies in ALS/MND has not been fully evaluated, given the paucity of high-quality clinical trials. Based on data from preclinical studies, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment for ALS/MND. This review was first published in 2015 when the first clinical trials of cell-based therapies were still in progress. We undertook this update to incorporate evidence now available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowed, provided that they were given to each group equally.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs involving 112 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study compared autologous bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only), while the other study compared combined intramuscular and intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF) to placebo. The latter study was reported as an abstract and provided no numerical data. Both studies were funded by biotechnology companies. The only study that contributed to the outcome data in the review involved 64 participants, comparing BM-MSC plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only). It reported outcomes after four to six months. It had a low risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of performance bias and attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was low for all major efficacy outcomes, with imprecision as the main downgrading factor, because the range of plausible estimates, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), encompassed a range that would likely result in different clinical decisions. Functional impairment, expressed as the mean change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to six months after cell injection was slightly reduced (better) in the BM-MSC group compared to the control group (mean difference (MD) 3.38, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.54; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). ALSFRS-R has a range from 48 (normal) to 0 (maximally impaired); a change of 4 or more points is considered clinically important. The trial did not report outcomes at 12 months. There was no clear difference between the BM-MSC and the no treatment group in change in respiratory function (per cent predicted forced vital capacity; FVC%; MD -0.53, 95% CI -5.37 to 4.31; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence); overall survival at six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); risk of total adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure muscle strength.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is a lack of high-certainty evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND. Uncertainties remain as to whether this mode of therapy is capable of restoring muscle function, slowing disease progression, and improving survival in people with ALS/MND. Although one RCT provided low-certainty evidence that BM-MSC may slightly reduce functional impairment measured on the ALSFRS-R after four to six months, this was a small phase II trial that cannot be used to establish efficacy. We need large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up to establish the efficacy and safety of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research are to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose and method of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.

Drug treatment for spinal muscular atrophy type I

BACKGROUND

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. By definition, children with SMA type I are never able to sit without support and usually die or become ventilator dependent before the age of two years. There have until very recently been no drug treatments to influence the course of SMA. We undertook this updated review to evaluate new evidence on emerging treatments for SMA type I. The review was first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of any drug therapy designed to slow or arrest progression of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type I.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. We also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials (October 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA type I. Included participants had to fulfil clinical criteria and have a genetically confirmed deletion or mutation of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2). The primary outcome measure was age at death or full-time ventilation. Secondary outcome measures were acquisition of motor milestones, i.e. head control, rolling, sitting or standing, motor milestone response on disability scores within one year after the onset of treatment, and adverse events and serious adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1 gene replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs: one trial of intrathecal nusinersen in comparison to a sham (control) procedure in 121 randomised infants with SMA type I, which was newly included at this update, and one small trial comparing riluzole treatment to placebo in 10 children with SMA type I. The RCT of intrathecally-injected nusinersen was stopped early for efficacy (based on a predefined Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination-Section 2 (HINE-2) response). At the interim analyses after 183 days of treatment, 41% (21/51) of nusinersen-treated infants showed a predefined improvement on HINE-2, compared to 0% (0/27) of participants in the control group. This trial was largely at low risk of bias. Final analyses (ranging from 6 months to 13 months of treatment), showed that fewer participants died or required full-time ventilation (defined as more than 16 hours daily for 21 days or more) in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.89; N = 121; a 47% lower risk; moderate-certainty evidence). A proportion of infants in the nusinersen group and none of 37 infants in the control group achieved motor milestones: 37/73 nusinersen-treated infants (51%) achieved a motor milestone response on HINE-2 (risk ratio (RR) 38.51, 95% CI 2.43 to 610.14; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence); 16/73 achieved head control (RR 16.95, 95% CI 1.04 to 274.84; moderate-certainty evidence); 6/73 achieved independent sitting (RR 6.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 115.38; moderate-certainty evidence); 7/73 achieved rolling over (RR 7.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 131.29); and 1/73 achieved standing (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.92; moderate-certainty evidence). Seventy-one per cent of nusinersen-treated infants versus 3% of infants in the control group were responders on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) measure of motor disability (RR 26.36, 95% CI 3.79 to 183.18; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in the majority of infants but were no more frequent in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05 and RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89, respectively; N = 121; moderate-certainty evidence). In the riluzole trial, three of seven children treated with riluzole were still alive at the ages of 30, 48, and 64 months, whereas all three children in the placebo group died. None of the children in the riluzole or placebo group developed the ability to sit, which was the only milestone reported. There were no adverse effects. The certainty of the evidence for all measured outcomes from this study was very low, because the study was too small to detect or rule out an effect, and had serious limitations, including baseline differences. This trial was stopped prematurely because the pharmaceutical company withdrew funding. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen, such as SMN2 augmentation by small molecules, are ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the very limited evidence currently available regarding drug treatments for SMA type 1, intrathecal nusinersen probably prolongs ventilation-free and overall survival in infants with SMA type I. It is also probable that a greater proportion of infants treated with nusinersen than with a sham procedure achieve motor milestones and can be classed as responders to treatment on clinical assessments (HINE-2 and CHOP INTEND). The proportion of children experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events on nusinersen is no higher with nusinersen treatment than with a sham procedure, based on evidence of moderate certainty. It is uncertain whether riluzole has any effect in patients with SMA type I, based on the limited available evidence. Future trials could provide more high-certainty, longer-term evidence to confirm this result, or focus on comparing new treatments to nusinersen or evaluate them as an add-on therapy to nusinersen.

Strength training and aerobic exercise training for muscle disease

BACKGROUND

Strength training or aerobic exercise programmes, or both, might optimise muscle and cardiorespiratory function and prevent additional disuse atrophy and deconditioning in people with a muscle disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and last updated in 2013. We undertook an update to incorporate new evidence in this active area of research.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of strength training and aerobic exercise training in people with a muscle disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Neuromuscular's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL in November 2018 and clinical trials registries in December 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or cross-over RCTs comparing strength or aerobic exercise training, or both lasting at least six weeks, to no training in people with a well-described muscle disease diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials of aerobic exercise, strength training, or both, with an exercise duration of eight to 52 weeks, which included 428 participants with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), dermatomyositis, polymyositis, mitochondrial myopathy, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), or myotonic dystrophy. Risk of bias was variable, as blinding of participants was not possible, some trials did not blind outcome assessors, and some did not use an intention-to-treat analysis. Strength training compared to no training (3 trials) For participants with FSHD (35 participants), there was low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on dynamic strength of elbow flexors (MD 1.2 kgF, 95% CI -0.2 to 2.6), on isometric strength of elbow flexors (MD 0.5 kgF, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.8), and ankle dorsiflexors (MD 0.4 kgF, 95% CI -2.4 to 3.2), and on dynamic strength of ankle dorsiflexors (MD -0.4 kgF, 95% CI -2.3 to 1.4). For participants with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (35 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence of a slight improvement in isometric wrist extensor strength (MD 8.0 N, 95% CI 0.7 to 15.3) and of little or no effect on hand grip force (MD 6.0 N, 95% CI -6.7 to 18.7), pinch grip force (MD 1.0 N, 95% CI -3.3 to 5.3) and isometric wrist flexor force (MD 7.0 N, 95% CI -3.4 to 17.4). Aerobic exercise training compared to no training (5 trials) For participants with DMD there was very low-certainty evidence regarding the number of leg revolutions (MD 14.0, 95% CI -89.0 to 117.0; 23 participants) or arm revolutions (MD 34.8, 95% CI -68.2 to 137.8; 23 participants), during an assisted six-minute cycle test, and very low-certainty evidence regarding muscle strength (MD 1.7, 95% CI -1.9 to 5.3; 15 participants). For participants with FSHD, there was low-certainty evidence of improvement in aerobic capacity (MD 1.1 L/min, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8, 38 participants) and of little or no effect on knee extension strength (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.9, 52 participants). For participants with dermatomyositis and polymyositis (14 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence regarding aerobic capacity (MD 14.6, 95% CI -1.0 to 30.2). Combined aerobic exercise and strength training compared to no training (6 trials) For participants with juvenile dermatomyositis (26 participants) there was low-certainty evidence of an improvement in knee extensor strength on the right (MD 36.0 N, 95% CI 25.0 to 47.1) and left (MD 17 N 95% CI 0.5 to 33.5), but low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on maximum force of hip flexors on the right (MD -9.0 N, 95% CI -22.4 to 4.4) or left (MD 6.0 N, 95% CI -6.6 to 18.6). This trial also provided low-certainty evidence of a slight decrease of aerobic capacity (MD -1.2 min, 95% CI -1.6 to 0.9). For participants with dermatomyositis and polymyositis (21 participants), we found very low-certainty evidence for slight increases in muscle strength as measured by dynamic strength of knee extensors on the right (MD 2.5 kg, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.3) and on the left (MD 2.7 kg, 95% CI 2.0 to 3.4) and no clear effect in isometric muscle strength of eight different muscles (MD 1.0, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.1). There was very low-certainty evidence that there may be an increase in aerobic capacity, as measured with time to exhaustion in an incremental cycle test (17.5 min, 95% CI 8.0 to 27.0) and power performed at VO₂ max (maximal oxygen uptake) (18 W, 95% CI 15.0 to 21.0). For participants with mitochondrial myopathy (18 participants), we found very low-certainty evidence regarding shoulder muscle (MD -5.0 kg, 95% CI -14.7 to 4.7), pectoralis major muscle (MD 6.4 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to 15.7), and anterior arm muscle strength (MD 7.3 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to 17.5). We found very low-certainty evidence regarding aerobic capacity, as measured with mean time cycled (MD 23.7 min, 95% CI 2.6 to 44.8) and mean distance cycled until exhaustion (MD 9.7 km, 95% CI 1.5 to 17.9). One trial in myotonic dystrophy type 1 (35 participants) did not provide data on muscle strength or aerobic capacity following combined training. In this trial, muscle strength deteriorated in one person and one person had worse daytime sleepiness (very low-certainty evidence). For participants with FSHD (16 participants), we found very low-certainty evidence regarding muscle strength, aerobic capacity and VO₂ peak; the results were very imprecise. Most trials reported no adverse events other than muscle soreness or joint complaints (low- to very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence regarding strength training and aerobic exercise interventions remains uncertain. Evidence suggests that strength training alone may have little or no effect, and that aerobic exercise training alone may lead to a possible improvement in aerobic capacity, but only for participants with FSHD. For combined aerobic exercise and strength training, there may be slight increases in muscle strength and aerobic capacity for people with dermatomyositis and polymyositis, and a slight decrease in aerobic capacity and increase in muscle strength for people with juvenile dermatomyositis. More research with robust methodology and greater numbers of participants is still required.

Assisted standing for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common X-linked neuromuscular disorder. When boys with DMD reach the second decade of life, they lose their ability to walk and become wheelchair dependent. Standing devices and orthoses are considered to be an essential component in the therapy management of DMD. Clinical opinion and research from other neurological conditions highlight the proposed benefits of standing device use, however, its effect within this population is currently unknown. A review of the evidence for the use of standing devices and orthoses is necessary to inform all stakeholders, including people with DMD, clinicians, decision makers and funders, and to guide future research.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of standing devices and orthoses on musculoskeletal impairments (such as pain, contracture, scoliosis development and bone density) in boys and men with DMD, and secondarily to determine their effect on quality of life, participation in activities, and patient experience (satisfaction). We also considered any adverse events associated with their use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, PEDro, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global up to 5 September 2019. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any model of standing device for use in DMD. The control interventions would have been any other comparison group, including no standing device, a different model of standing device, usual care, or an alternative form of assistive weight bearing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Although we identified 13 potentially relevant studies, none met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since there were no RCTs or quasi-RCTs available to evaluate the effectiveness of standing devices in people with DMD, studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of standing devices in this population.

Interventions for idiopathic toe walking

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic toe walking (ITW) is an exclusionary diagnosis given to healthy children who persist in walking on their toes after they should typically have achieved a heel-toe gait. The literature discusses conservative and surgical interventions using a variety of treatment modalities. Young children and children without a limitation in ankle dorsiflexion (the upwards movement of the foot towards the shin of the leg) are commonly treated with conservative interventions. Older children who continue toe walking and present with limitations in ankle dorsiflexion are sometimes treated with surgical procedures. This systematic review is needed to evaluate the evidence for any intervention for the treatment of ITW. The conclusions of this review may support decision making by clinicians caring for children with ITW. It may also assist families when deciding on treatment options for their children with ITW. Many of the treatments employed have financial implications for parents or healthcare services. This review also aims to highlight any deficits in the current research base.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of conservative and surgical interventions in children with ITW, specifically effects on gait normalisation, ankle range of motion, pain, frequency of recurrence, and any adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

On 29 April 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and PEDro. We searched the following registers of clinical trials for ongoing and recently completed trials: the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, apps.who.int/trialsearch), and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov). We searched conference proceedings and other grey literature in the BIOSIS databases and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey, opengrey.eu). We searched guidelines via the Turning Research Into Practice database (TRIP, tripdatabase.com) and National Guideline Clearinghouse (guideline.gov). We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised or quasi-randomised trials for inclusion in the review if they involved participants diagnosed with ITW gait in the absence of a medical condition known to cause toe walking, or associated with toe walking. As there is no universally accepted age group for ITW, this review includes ITW at any age, who have been toe walking for more than six months, who can or cannot walk with a heel-toe gait, and who may or may not have limited dorsiflexion of the ankle joint.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was improvement in toe walking (defined as greater than 50% of time spent heel-toe walking). Secondary outcomes were active and passive range of motion of the ankle joint, pain, recurrence of ITW after treatment, and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, comprising 104 participants, met the inclusion criteria. One study did not report data within the appropriate follow-up timeframe and data from two studies were insufficient for analysis. The single study from which we extracted data had 47 participants and was a randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial conducted in Sweden. It tested the hypothesis that combined treatment with serial casting and botulinum toxin type A (BTX) was more effective than serial casting alone in reducing ITW gait.This study found that more participants treated with BTX improved (defined as toe walking less than 50% of the time, as reported by parents) (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 2.55; 1 trial, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference between groups in passive ankle joint dorsiflexion range of movement on the right with the knee extended (mean difference (MD) -1.48º, 95% CI -4.13 to 1.16; 1 trial, 47 participants), on the right with the knee flexed (MD -0.04º, 95% CI -1.80 to 1.73; 1 trial, 46 participants), on the left with the knee flexed (MD 1.07, 95% CI -1.22 to 3.37), or on the left with the knee extended (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.91 to 1.91). Nor was there a clear difference between the groups in recurrence of toe-walking gait (assessed via severity of toe walking (graded 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), or 3 (severe)) on gait analysis, analysed as continuous data: MD 0.34 points, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.78; 46 participants). In principle, MDs greater than zero (i.e.) positive values) would favour BTX and casting and negative values would favour casting alone. We have not reported effects as better or worse because all results were from evidence of very low certainty. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations (outcome assessment was not blinded) and imprecision. Outcomes of pain and active range of motion were not reported in the included study.In terms of adverse events, calf pain was reported twice in the casting-only group and three times in the BTX group. There were three minor skin problems in each group and one reported case of pain directly after BTX injection. The report did not state if calf pain and skin irritation were from the same or different participants. The study authors reported that adverse events did not alter treatment adherence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence from one study, which compared serial casting with serial casting with BTX for ITW in children, was too low for conclusions to be drawn. A further three studies reported outcomes relating to BTX, footwear, exercises, and different types of orthoses as interventions, however the outcome data were too limited to assess their effects.

Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis)

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.Incomplete recoveryA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.Adverse events Adverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.We found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.An adequately powered RCT in people with Bell's palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.

Respiratory muscle training in children and adults with neuromuscular disease

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases affecting the anterior horn cell of spinal cord, neuromuscular junction, peripheral nerves and muscles. NMDs cause physical disability usually due to progressive loss of strength in limb muscles, and some NMDs also cause respiratory muscle weakness. Respiratory muscle training (RMT) might be expected to improve respiratory muscle weakness; however, the effects of RMT are still uncertain. This systematic review will synthesize the available trial evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RMT in people with NMD, to inform clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of respiratory muscle training (RMT) for neuromuscular disease (NMD) in adults and children, in comparison to sham training, no training, standard treatment, breathing exercises, or other intensities or types of RMT.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19 November 2018, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. On 23 December 2018, we searched the US National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, including cross-over trials, of RMT in adults and children with a diagnosis of NMD of any degree of severity, who were living in the community, and who did not need mechanical ventilation. We compared trials of RMT (inspiratory muscle training (IMT) or expiratory muscle training (EMT), or both), with sham training, no training, standard treatment, different intensities of RMT, different types of RMT, or breathing exercises.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies involving 250 randomized participants with NMDs: three trials (N = 88) in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; motor neuron disease), six trials (N = 112) in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), one trial (N = 23) in people with Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) or limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, and one trial (N = 27) in people with myasthenia gravis.Nine of the trials were at high risk of bias in at least one domain and many reported insufficient information for accurate assessment of the risk of bias. Populations, interventions, control interventions, and outcome measures were often different, which largely ruled out meta-analysis. All included studies assessed lung capacity, our primary outcome, but four did not provide data for analysis (1 in people with ALS and three cross-over studies in DMD). None provided long-term data (over a year) and only one trial, in ALS, provided information on adverse events. Unscheduled hospitalisations for chest infection or acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory failure were not reported and physical function and quality of life were reported in one (ALS) trial.Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)Three trials compared RMT versus sham training in ALS. Short-term (8 weeks) effects of RMT on lung capacity in ALS showed no clear difference in the change of the per cent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) between EMT and sham EMT groups (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.48 to 9.88; N = 46; low-certainty evidence). The mean difference (MD) in FVC% after four months' treatment was 10.86% in favour of IMT (95% CI -4.25 to 25.97; 1 trial, N = 24; low-certainty evidence), which is larger than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, as estimated in people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). There was no clear difference between IMT and sham IMT groups, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALFRS; range of possible scores 0 = best to 40 = worst) (MD 0.85, 95% CI -2.16 to 3.85; 1 trial, N = 24; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life, measured on the EuroQol-5D (0 = worst to 100 = best) (MD 0.77, 95% CI -17.09 to 18.62; 1 trial, N = 24; low-certainty evidence) over the medium term (4 months). One trial report stated that the IMT protocol had no adverse effect (very low-certainty evidence).Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)Two DMD trials compared RMT versus sham training in young males with DMD. In one study, the mean post-intervention (6-week) total lung capacity (TLC) favoured RMT (MD 0.45 L, 95% CI -0.24 to 1.14; 1 trial, N = 16; low-certainty evidence). In the other trial there was no clear difference in post-intervention (18 days) FVC between RMT and sham RMT (MD 0.16 L, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.63; 1 trial, N = 20; low-certainty evidence). One RCT and three cross-over trials compared a form of RMT with no training in males with DMD; the cross-over trials did not provide suitable data. Post-intervention (6-month) values showed no clear difference between the RMT and no training groups in per cent predicted vital capacity (VC%) (MD 3.50, 95% CI -14.35 to 21.35; 1 trial, N = 30; low-certainty evidence).Becker or limb-girdle muscular dystrophyOne RCT (N = 21) compared 12 weeks of IMT with breathing exercises in people with Becker or limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. The evidence was of very low certainty and conclusions could not be drawn.Myasthenia gravisIn myasthenia gravis, there may be no clear difference between RMT and breathing exercises on measures of lung capacity, in the short term (TLC MD -0.20 L, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.67; 1 trial, N = 27; low-certainty evidence). Effects of RMT on quality of life are uncertain (1 trial; N = 27).Some trials reported effects of RMT on inspiratory and/or expiratory muscle strength; this evidence was also of low or very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RMT may improve lung capacity and respiratory muscle strength in some NMDs. In ALS there may not be any clinically meaningful effect of RMT on physical functioning or quality of life and it is uncertain whether it causes adverse effects. Due to clinical heterogeneity between the trials and the small number of participants included in the analysis, together with the risk of bias, these results must be interpreted very cautiously.

Acetyl-L-carnitine for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common and severe complication that affects 50% of people with diabetes. Painful DPN is reported to occur in 16% to 24% of people with diabetes. A complete and comprehensive management strategy for the prevention and treatment of DPN, whether painful or not, has not yet been defined.Research into treatment for DPN has been characterised by a series of failed clinical trials, with few noteworthy advances. Strategies that support peripheral nerve regeneration and restore neurological function in people with painful or painless DPN are needed. The amino acid acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) plays a role in the transfer of long-chain fatty acids into mitochondria for β-oxidation. ALC supplementation also induces neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects in the peripheral nervous system. Therefore, ALC supplementation targets several mechanisms relevant to potential nerve repair and regeneration, and could have clinical therapeutic potential. There is a need for a systematic review of the evidence from clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ALC for the treatment of DPN.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 July 2018, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of ALC compared with placebo, other therapy, or no intervention in the treatment of DPN. Participants could be of any sex and age, and have type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, of any severity, with painful or painless DPN. We accepted any definition of minimum criteria for DPN, in accordance with the Toronto Consensus. We imposed no language restriction.Pain was the primary outcome, measured as the proportion of participants with at least 30% (moderate) or 50% (substantial) decrease in pain over baseline, or as the score on a visual analogue scale (VAS) or Likert scale for pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with 907 participants, which were reported in three publications. Three trials studied ALC versus placebo (675 participants); in one trial the dose of ALC was 2000 mg/day, and in the other two trials, it was 1500 mg/day or 3000 mg/day. The fourth trial studied ALC 1500 mg/day versus methylcobalamin 1.5 mg/day (232 participants). The risk of bias was high in both trials of different ALC doses and low in the other two trials.No included trial measured the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. ALC reduced pain more than placebo, measured on a 0- to 100-mm VAS (MD -9.16, 95% CI -16.76 to -1.57; three studies; 540 participants; P = 0.02; I² = 56%; random-effects; very low-certainty evidence; a higher score indicating more pain). At doses of 1500 mg/day or less, the VAS score after ALC treatment was little different from placebo (MD -0.05, 95% CI -10.00 to 9.89; two studies; 159 participants; P = 0.99; I² = 0%), but at doses greater than 1500 mg/day, ALC reduced pain more than placebo (MD -14.93, 95% CI -19.16 to -10.70; three studies; 381 participants; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%). This subgroup analysis should be viewed with caution as the evidence was even less certain than the overall analysis, which was already of very low certainty.Two placebo-controlled studies reported that vibration perception improved after 12 months. We graded this evidence as very low certainty, due to inconsistency and a high risk of bias, as the trial authors did not provide any numerical data. The placebo-controlled studies did not measure functional impairment and disability scores. No study used validated symptom scales. One study performed sensory testing, but the evidence was very uncertain.The fourth included study compared ALC with methylcobalamin, but did not report effects on pain. There was a reduction from baseline to 24 weeks in functional impairment and disability, based on the change in mean Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS; scale from zero to 10), but there was no important difference between the ALC group (mean score 1.66 ± 1.90) and the methylcobalamin group (mean score 1.35 ± 1.65) groups (P = 0.23; low-certainty evidence).One placebo-controlled study reported that six of 147 participants in the ALC > 1500 mg/day group (4.1%) and two of 147 participants in the placebo group (1.4%) discontinued treatment because of adverse events (headache, facial paraesthesia, and gastrointestinal disorders) (P = 0.17). The other two placebo-controlled studies reported no dropouts due to adverse events, and more pain, paraesthesia, and hyperaesthesias in the placebo group than the 3000 mg/day ALC group, but provided no numerical data. The overall certainty of adverse event evidence for the comparison of ALC versus placebo was low.The study comparing ALC with methylcobalamin reported that 34/117 participants (29.1%) experienced adverse events in the ALC group versus 33/115 (28.7%) in the methylcobalamin group (P = 0.95). Nine participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events (ALC: 4 participants, methylcobalamin: 5 participants), which were most commonly gastrointestinal symptoms. The certainty of the adverse event evidence for ALC versus methylcobalamin was low.Two studies were funded by the manufacturer of ALC and the other two studies had at least one co-author who was a consultant for an ALC manufacturer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether ALC causes a reduction in pain after 6 to 12 months' treatment in people with DPN, when compared with placebo, as the evidence is sparse and of low certainty. Data on functional and sensory impairment and symptoms are lacking, or of very low certainty. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety.

Physical exercise training for type 3 spinal muscular atrophy

BACKGROUND

Physical exercise training might improve muscle and cardiorespiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Optimization of aerobic capacity or other resources in residual muscle tissue through exercise may counteract the muscle deterioration that occurs secondary to motor neuron loss and inactivity in SMA. There is currently no evidence synthesis available on physical exercise training in people with SMA type 3.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of physical exercise training on functional performance in people with SMA type 3, and to identify any adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 May 2018, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and LILACS. On 25 April 2018 we searched NHSEED, DARE, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs lasting at least 12 weeks that compared physical exercise training (strength training, aerobic exercise training, or both) to placebo, standard or usual care, or another type of non-physical intervention for SMA type 3. Participants were adults and children from the age of five years with a diagnosis of SMA type 3 (Kugelberg-Welander syndrome), confirmed by genetic analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT that studied the effects of a six-month, home-based, combined muscle strength and recumbent cycle ergometry training program versus usual care in 14 ambulatory people with SMA. The age range of the participants was between 10 years and 48 years. The study was evaluator-blinded, but personnel and participants could not be blinded to the intervention, which placed the results at a high risk of bias. Participants performed strength training as prescribed, but 50% of the participants did not achieve the intended aerobic exercise training regimen. The trial used change in walking distance on the six-minute walk test as a measure of function; a minimal detectable change is 24.0 m. The change from baseline to six months' follow-up in the training group (9.4 m) was not detectably different from the change in the usual care group (-0.14 m) (mean difference (MD) 9.54 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) -83.04 to 102.12; N = 12). Cardiopulmonary exercise capacity, assessed by the change from baseline to six months' follow-up in peak oxygen uptake (VO2max) was similar in the training group (-0.12 mL/kg/min) and the usual care group (-1.34 mL/kg/min) (MD 1.22 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -2.16 to 4.6; N = 12). A clinically meaningful increase in VO2max is 3.5 mL/kg/min.The trial assessed function on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale - Expanded (HFMSE), which has a range of possible scores from 0 to 66, with an increase of 3 or more points indicating clinically meaningful improvement. The HFMSE score in the training group increased by 2 points from baseline to six months' follow-up, with no change in the usual care group (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.06 to 6.06; N = 12). The training group showed a slight improvement in muscle strength, expressed as the manual muscle testing (MMT) total score, which ranges from 28 (weakest) to 280 (strongest). The change from baseline in MMT total score was 6.8 in the training group compared to -5.14 in the usual care group (MD 11.94, 95% CI -3.44 to 27.32; N = 12).The trial stated that training had no statistically significant effects on fatigue and quality of life. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low because of study limitations and imprecision. The study did not assess the effects of physical exercise training on physical activity levels. No study-related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred, but we cannot draw wider conclusions from this very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether combined strength and aerobic exercise training is beneficial or harmful in people with SMA type 3, as the quality of evidence is very low. We need well-designed and adequately powered studies using protocols that meet international standards for the development of training interventions, in order to improve our understanding of the exercise response in people with SMA type 3 and eventually develop exercise guidelines for this condition.

Acupuncture for symptomatic gastroparesis

BACKGROUND

Gastroparesis, a state of delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction of the stomach, has a substantial impact on people's daily function and quality of life when symptomatic. Current treatment options are based on limited evidence of benefits. Acupuncture is widely used to manage gastrointestinal disorders, although its role in people with symptomatic gastroparesis is unclear. We therefore undertook a systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture, in comparison with no treatment, sham acupuncture, conventional medicine, standard care, or other non-pharmacological active interventions for symptom management in people with gastroparesis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 26 March 2018, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, AMED, Korean medical databases (including Korean Studies Information, DBPIA, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Research Information Centre for Health Database, KoreaMed, and the National Assembly Library), and Chinese databases (including the China Academic Journal). We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing trials. We imposed no language limitations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials comparing the penetrating type of acupuncture with no treatment, sham acupuncture, conventional medicine, standard care, and other non-pharmacological active interventions for people with symptomatic gastroparesis of any aetiology (i.e. surgical, diabetic, or idiopathic). Trials reporting outcomes at least four weeks from baseline (short-term outcomes) were eligible. We defined long-term outcomes as those measured after 12 weeks from baseline. The primary outcome was improvement of gastroparesis symptoms in the short term. Secondary outcomes were: improvement of symptoms measured after three months, change in the rate of gastric emptying, quality of life, use of medication, and adverse events in the short and long term.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible trials based on predefined selection criteria. Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. The review authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information wherever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies that involved a total of 2601 participants. Acupuncture was either manually stimulated (24 studies) or electrically stimulated (8 studies). The aetiology of gastroparesis was diabetes (31 studies) or surgery (1 study). All studies provided data on the proportion of people with symptoms 'improved', although the definition or categorisation of improvement varied among the studies. Most measured only short-term outcomes (28 studies), and only one study employed validated instruments to assess subjective changes in symptoms or reported data on quality of life or the use of medication. Reporting of harm was incomplete; minor adverse events were reported in only seven trials. Most studies had unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment (29/32), outcome assessor blinding (31/32) and selective reporting (31/32), as well as high risk of bias in terms of participant/personnel blinding (31/32). Acupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture (needling on non-acupuncture points), three different types of gastrokinetic drugs (domperidone, mosapride, cisapride), and a histamine H₂ receptor antagonist (cimetidine).There was low-certainty evidence that symptom scores of participants receiving acupuncture did not differ from those of participants receiving sham acupuncture at three months when measured by a validated scale.There was very low-certainty evidence that a greater proportion of participants receiving acupuncture had 'improved' symptoms in the short term compared to participants who received gastrokinetic medication (4 to 12 weeks) (12 studies; 963 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.33, I² = 8%). Short-term improvement in overall symptom scores favouring acupuncture was also reported in five studies with considerable heterogeneity.Acupuncture in combination with other treatments, including gastrokinetics, non-gastrokinetics and routine care, was compared with the same treatment alone. There was very low-certainty evidence in favour of acupuncture for the proportion of participants with 'improved' symptoms in the short term (4 to 12 weeks) (17 studies; 1404 participants; RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.28; I² = 0%). Short-term improvement in overall symptom scores, favouring acupuncture, were also reported (two studies, 132 participants; MD -1.96, 95% CI -2.42 to -1.50; I² = 0%).Seven studies described adverse events, including minor bleeding and hematoma, dizziness, xerostomia, loose stool, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, skin rash and fatigue. The rest of the trials did not report whether adverse events occurred.Subgroup analyses revealed that short-term benefits in terms of the proportion of people with 'improved' symptoms did not differ according to the type of acupuncture stimulation (i.e. manual or electrical). The sensitivity analysis revealed that use of a valid method of random sequence generation, and the use of objective measurements of gastric emptying, did not alter the overall effect estimate in terms of the proportion of people with 'improved' symptoms. The asymmetric funnel plot suggests small study effects and publication bias towards positive reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence for a short-term benefit with acupuncture alone or acupuncture combined with gastrokinetic drugs compared with the drug alone, in terms of the proportion of people who experienced improvement in diabetic gastroparesis. There is evidence of publication bias and a positive bias of small study effects. The reported benefits should be interpreted with great caution because of the unclear overall risk of bias, unvalidated measurements of change in subjective symptoms, publication bias and small study reporting bias, and lack of data on long-term outcomes; the effects reported in this review may therefore differ significantly from the true effect. One sham-controlled trial provided low-certainty evidence of no difference between real and sham acupuncture in terms of short-term symptom improvement in diabetic gastroparesis, when measured by a validated scale. No studies reported changes in quality of life or the use of medication.Due to the absence of data, no conclusion can be made regarding effects of acupuncture on gastroparesis of other aetiologies. Reports of harm have remained largely incomplete, precluding assessments of the safety of acupuncture in this population. Future research should focus on reducing the sources of bias in the trial design as well as transparent reporting. Harms of interventions should be explicitly reported.

Acupuncture and related interventions for the treatment of symptoms associated with carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compressive neuropathic disorder at the level of the wrist. Acupuncture and other methods that stimulate acupuncture points, such as electroacupuncture, auricular acupuncture, laser acupuncture, moxibustion, and acupressure, are used in treating CTS. Acupuncture has been recommended as a potentially useful treatment for CTS, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. We used Cochrane methodology to assess the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised trials of acupuncture for symptoms in people with CTS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture and acupuncture-related interventions compared to sham or active treatments for the management of pain and other symptoms of CTS in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

On 13 November 2017, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, DARE, HTA, and NHS EED. In addition, we searched six Korean medical databases, and three Chinese medical databases from inception to 30 April 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials examining the effects of acupuncture and related interventions on the symptoms of CTS in adults. Eligible studies specified diagnostic criteria for CTS. We included outcomes measured at least three weeks after randomisation. The included studies compared acupuncture and related interventions to placebo/sham treatments, or to active interventions, such as steroid nerve blocks, oral steroid, splints, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), surgery and physical therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with 869 participants. Ten studies reported the primary outcome of overall clinical improvement at short-term follow-up (3 months or less) after randomisation. Most studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity, and all had an unclear or high overall risk of bias.Seven studies provided information on adverse events. Non-serious adverse events included skin bruising with electroacupuncture and local pain after needle insertion. No serious adverse events were reported.One study (N = 41) comparing acupuncture to sham/placebo reported change on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) at three months after treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.79 to 0.33) and the BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.63), with no clear difference between interventions; the evidence was of low certainty. The only dropout was due to painful acupuncture. Another study of acupuncture versus placebo/sham acupuncture (N = 111) provided no usable data.Two studies assessed laser acupuncture versus sham laser acupuncture. One study (N = 60), which was at low risk of bias, provided low-certainty evidence of a better Global Symptom Scale (GSS) score with active treatment at four weeks after treatment (MD 7.46, 95% CI 4.71 to 10.22; range of possible GSS scores is 0 to 50) and a higher response rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.22). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. The other study (N = 25) did not assess overall symptom improvement.One trial (N = 77) of conventional acupuncture versus oral corticosteroids provided very low-certainty evidence of greater improvement in GSS score (scale 0 to 50) at 13 months after treatment with acupuncture (MD 8.25, 95% CI 4.12 to 12.38) and a higher responder rate (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.45). Change in GSS at two weeks or four weeks after treatment showed no clear difference between groups. Adverse events occurred in 18% of the oral corticosteroid group and 5% of the acupuncture group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.32). One study comparing electroacupuncture and oral corticosteroids reported a clinically insignificant difference in change in BCTQ score at four weeks after treatment (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.10; N = 52).Combined data from two studies comparing the responder rate with acupuncture versus vitamin B_12, produced a RR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; N = 100, very low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.One study of conventional acupuncture versus ibuprofen in which all participants wore night splints found very low-certainty evidence of a lower symptom score on the SSS of the BCTQ with acupuncture (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.95 to -3.65; N = 50) at one month after treatment. Five people had adverse events with ibuprofen and none with acupuncture.One study of electroacupuncture versus night splints found no clear difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.43; N = 60; very low-certainty evidence). Six people had adverse events with electroacupuncture and none with splints. One study of electroacupuncture plus night splints versus night splints alone presented no difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ at 17 weeks (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.04; N = 181, low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.One study comparing acupuncture plus NSAIDs and vitamins versus NSAIDs and vitamins alone showed no clear difference on the BCTQ SSS at four weeks (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.46; very low-certainty evidence). There was no reporting on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture and laser acupuncture may have little or no effect in the short term on symptoms of CTS in comparison with placebo or sham acupuncture. It is uncertain whether acupuncture and related interventions are more or less effective in relieving symptoms of CTS than corticosteroid nerve blocks, oral corticosteroids, vitamin B₁₂, ibuprofen, splints, or when added to NSAIDs plus vitamins, as the certainty of any conclusions from the evidence is low or very low and most evidence is short term. The included studies covered diverse interventions, had diverse designs, limited ethnic diversity, and clinical heterogeneity. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to rigorously assess the effects of acupuncture and related interventions upon symptoms of CTS. Based on moderate to very-low certainty evidence, acupuncture was associated with no serious adverse events, or reported discomfort, pain, local paraesthesia and temporary skin bruises, but not all studies provided adverse event data.

Interventions for preventing and treating cardiac complications in Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy and X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

The dystrophinopathies include Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), and X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy (XLDCM). In recent years, co-ordinated multidisciplinary management for these diseases has improved the quality of care, with early corticosteroid use prolonging independent ambulation, and the routine use of non-invasive ventilation signficantly increasing survival. The next target to improve outcomes is optimising treatments to delay the onset or slow the progression of cardiac involvement and so prolong survival further.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for preventing or treating cardiac involvement in DMD, BMD, and XLDCM, using measures of change in cardiac function over six months.

SEARCH METHODS

On 16 October 2017 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and on 12 December 2017, we searched two clinical trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and randomised cross-over trials for inclusion. In the Discussion, we reviewed open studies, longitudinal observational studies and individual case reports but only discussed studies that adequately described the diagnosis, intervention, pretreatment, and post-treatment states and in which follow-up lasted for at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts identified from the search and performed data extraction. All three authors assessed risk of bias independently, compared results, and decided which trials met the inclusion criteria. They assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (N = 205) in the review; four studies included participants with DMD only, and one study included participants with DMD or BMD. All studied different interventions, and meta-analysis was not possible. We found no studies for XLDCM. None of the trials reported cardiac function as improved or stable cardiac versus deteriorated.The randomised first part of a two-part study of perindopril (N = 28) versus placebo (N = 27) in boys with DMD with normal heart function at baseline showed no difference in the number of participants with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%) of less than 45% after three years of therapy (n = 1 in each group; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 15.77). This result is uncertain because of study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. In a non-randomised follow-up study, after 10 years, more participants who had received placebo from the beginning had reduced LVEF% (less than 45%). Adverse event rates were similar between the placebo and treatment groups (low-certainty evidence).A study comparing treatment with lisinopril versus losartan in 23 boys newly diagnosed with Duchenne cardiomyopathy showed that after 12 months, both were equally effective in preserving or improving LVEF% (lisinopril 54.6% (standard deviation (SD) 5.19), losartan 55.2% (SD 7.19); mean difference (MD) -0.60% CI -6.67 to 5.47: N = 16). The certainty of evidence was very low because of very serious imprecision and study limitations (risk of bias). Two participants in the losartan group were withdrawn due to adverse events: one participant developed an allergic reaction, and a second exceeded the safety standard with a fall in ejection fraction greater than 10%. Authors reported no other adverse events related to the medication (N = 22; very low-certainty evidence).A study comparing idebenone versus placebo in 21 boys with DMD showed little or no difference in mean change in cardiac function between the two groups from baseline to 12 months; for fractional shortening the mean change was 1.4% (SD 4.1) in the idebenone group and 1.6% (SD 2.6) in the placebo group (MD -0.20%, 95% CI -3.07 to 2.67, N = 21), and for ejection fraction the mean change was -1.9% (SD 9.8) in the idebenone group and 0.4% (SD 5.5) in the placebo group (MD -2.30%, 95% CI -9.18 to 4.58, N = 21). The certainty of evidence was very low because of study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reported adverse events were similar between the treatment and placebo groups (low-certainty evidence).A multicentre controlled study added eplerenone or placebo to 42 patients with DMD with early cardiomyopathy but preserved left ventricular function already established on ACEI or ARB therapy. Results showed that eplerenone slowed the rate of decline of magnetic resonance (MR)-assessed left ventricular circumferential strain at 12 months (eplerenone group median 1.0%, interquartile range (IQR) 0.3 to -2.2; placebo group median 2.2%, IQR 1.3 to -3.1%; P = 0.020). The median decline in LVEF over the same period was also less in the eplerenone group (-1.8%, IQR -2.9 to 6.0) than in the placebo group (-3.7%, IQR -10.8 to 1.0; P = 0.032). We downgraded the certainty of evidence to very low for study limitations and serious imprecision. Serious adverse events were reported in two patients given placebo but none in the treatment group (very low-certainty evidence).A randomised placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous growth hormone in 16 participants with DMD or BMD showed an increase in left ventricular mass after three months' treatment but no significant improvement in cardiac function. The evidence was of very low certainty due to imprecision, indirectness, and study limitations. There were no clinically significant adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).Some studies were at risk of bias, and all were small. Therefore, although there is some evidence from non-randomised data to support the prophylactic use of perindopril for cardioprotection ahead of detectable cardiomyopathy, and for lisinopril or losartan plus eplerenone once cardiomyopathy is detectable, this must be considered of very low certainty. Findings from non-randomised studies, some of which have been long term, have led to the use of these drugs in daily clinical practice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence from RCTs, early treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs may be comparably beneficial for people with a dystrophinopathy; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. Very low-certainty evidence indicates that adding eplerenone might give additional benefit when early cardiomyopathy is detected. No clinically meaningful effect was seen for growth hormone or idebenone, although the certainty of the evidence is also very low.

Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common problem and surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel is the most effective treatment. After surgical decompression, the palmar skin may be closed using either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures. To date, there is conflicting evidence regarding the ideal suture material and this formed the rationale for our review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after elective carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults on postoperative pain, hand function, scar satisfaction, wound inflammation and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 30 October 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two clinical trials registries on 30 October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after any form of carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The unit of analysis was the hand rather than the patient. We performed meta-analysis of direct comparisons to generate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in pain scores and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes, such as wound inflammation. The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included hand function, scar satisfaction, scar inflammation and adverse events (complications). We assessed the quality of evidence for key outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised trials (255 participants). The trials were all European (UK, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands). Where quoted, the mean age of participants was between 48 and 53 years. The trials measured outcomes between one and 12 weeks postoperatively.Meta-analysis of postoperative pain scores for absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures at 10 days following open carpal tunnel decompression (OCTD) produced a SMD of 0.03 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.48; 3 studies, number of participants (N) = 137; I² = 43%); the SMD suggests little or no difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty because of very low-quality evidence. At 10 days following endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression (ECTD), the SMD for postoperative pain with use of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures was -0.81 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.25; 1 study; N = 54); although the SMD is consistent with a large effect, the very low-quality evidence means the results are very uncertain. Only the OCTD studies provided pain data at 6 weeks, when the SMD was 0.06 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.84; 4 studies; N = 175; I² = 84%), which indicates little or no evidence of difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty (very low-quality evidence). The RR for wound inflammation using absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures after OCTD was 2.28 (95% CI 0.24 to 21.91; N = 95; I² = 90%) and after ECTD 0.93 (95% CI 0.06 to 14.09; 1 study, N = 54). Any difference in effect on wound inflammation is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. One study reported postoperative hand function but found no evidence of a difference between suture types at two weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.10, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.33, N = 36), with similar findings at six and 12 weeks. Only the ECTD trial reported scar satisfaction, with 25 out of 28 people reporting a 'nice' result in the absorbable-suture group, versus 18 out of 26 in the group who received non-absorbable sutures (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.72, N = 54). These findings are also very uncertain as we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. All studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. No trials reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether absorbable sutures confer better, worse or equivalent outcomes compared to non-absorbable sutures following carpal tunnel decompression, because the quality of evidence is very low. Use of absorbable suture eliminates the need for suture removal, which could confer considerable savings to patients and healthcare providers alike. We need rigorously-performed, non-inferiority randomised trials with economic analyses to inform choice of suture.

Treatment of fatigue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is terminal, progressive neurological condition for which there are no curative treatments. Among people with ALS/MND, fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom, which is characterised by reversible motor weakness and whole-body tiredness that is only partially relieved by rest. The effectiveness of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in ALS/MND is not yet established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in ALS/MND.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 5 September 2017: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and ERIC. We also searched two clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any intervention which sought to reduce fatigue for people with ALS/MND. We included studies if reduction in fatigue was a primary or secondary outcome of the trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one pharmacological (modafinil) study and three non-pharmacological studies (resistance exercise, respiratory exercise, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)), involving a total of 86 participants with ALS/MND. None of the included studies were free from risk of bias. Since there was only one trial for each intervention, no meta-analysis was possible. All studies assessed fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS; scale from 9 to 63, higher scores indicate more fatigue). Information for assessing bias was often lacking in study reports, making the risk of bias unclear across several domains in all trials. Blinding of participants was not possible in exercise trials, but the outcome assessment was blinded.We found very low-quality evidence suggesting possible improvements in fatigue for modafinil treatment versus placebo (MD -11.00, 95% CI -23.08 to 1.08), respiratory exercise versus a sham intervention (MD -9.65, 95% CI -22.04 to 2.73), and rTMS versus sham rTMS (data not provided), which warrant further investigation to clarify the efficacy of these treatments for fatigue in ALS/MND. We found no clear improvements in fatigue for resistance exercise versus usual care (MD 0.20, 95% CI -10.98 to 11.38; very low-quality evidence).Three participants in the modafinil group dropped out of the modafinil study, two citing issues with headache and one with chest tightness; other adverse effects were anxiety, nausea, dizziness, and sialorrhoea (probably ALS-related). The trials reported no adverse effects of exercise or rTMS.We cannot be certain about the effects of any of the interventions studied because of imprecision (small numbers of participants, wide CI), and possible study limitations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions to improve fatigue for people with ALS/MND as there are few randomised studies, and the quality of available evidence is very low.

Invasive versus non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure in neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory failure is a common life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular diseases, and may exacerbate chronic hypoventilation in patients with neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders. Standard management includes oxygen supplementation, physiotherapy, cough assistance, and, whenever needed, antibiotics and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) via nasal, buccal or full-face devices has become routine practice in many centres.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation with invasive ventilation in improving short-term survival in acute respiratory failure in people with neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. The secondary objectives were to compare the effects of NIV with those of invasive mechanical ventilation on improvement in arterial blood gas after 24 hours and lung function measurements after one month, incidence of barotrauma and ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and length of hospital stay.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 11 September 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings and clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials with or without blinding. We planned to include trials performed in children or adults with acute onset neuromuscular diseases or chronic neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders presenting with acute respiratory failure that compared the benefits and risks of invasive ventilation versus NIV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors reviewed searches and independently selected studies for assessment. We planned to follow standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular disease and of chronic neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. We found no randomised trials on which to elaborate evidence-based practice for the use of non-invasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation. For researchers, there is a need to design and conduct new randomised trials to compare NIV with invasive ventilation in acute neuromuscular respiratory failure. These trials should anticipate variations in treatment responses according to disease condition (acute onset versus acute exacerbation on chronic neuromuscular diseases) and according to the presence or absence of bulbar dysfunction.

Oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Several anticonvulsant drugs are used in the management of neuropathic pain. Oxcarbazepine is an anticonvulsant drug closely related to carbamazepine. Oxcarbazepine has been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is conflicting. Oxcarbazepine is reportedly better tolerated than carbamazepine. This is the first update of a review published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine for different types of neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 21 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We searched the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to November 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials in January 2017, and we wrote to the companies who make oxcarbazepine and to pain experts requesting additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs and randomised cross-over studies of oxcarbazepine for the treatment of people of any age or sex with any neuropathic pain were eligible. We planned to include trials of oxcarbazepine compared with placebo or any other intervention with a treatment duration of at least six weeks, regardless of administration route and dose.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Five multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a total of 862 participants were eligible for inclusion in this updated review. Three trials involved participants with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) (n = 634), one included people with neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy (n = 145), and one, which was newly identified at this update, involved participants with peripheral neuropathic pain of mixed origin (polyneuropathy, peripheral nerve injury or postherpetic neuralgia) (n = 83). Some studies did not report all outcomes of interest. For painful DPN, compared to the baseline, the proportion of participants who reported at least a 50% or 30% reduction of pain scores after 16 weeks of treatment in the oxcarbazepine group versus the placebo group were: at least 50% reduction: 34.8% with oxcarbazepine versus 18.2% with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.39, number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 3 to 41); and at least 30% reduction: 44.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 28.6% with placebo (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44; NNTB 6, 95% CI 3 to 114; n = 146). Both results were based on data from a single trial, since two trials that found little or no benefit did not provide data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Although these trials were well designed, incomplete outcome data and possible unblinding of participants due to obvious adverse effects placed the results at a high risk of bias. There was also serious imprecision and a high risk of publication bias. The radiculopathy trial reported no benefit for the outcome 'at least 50% pain relief' from oxcarbazepine. In mixed neuropathies, 19.3% of people receiving oxcarbazepine versus 4.8% receiving placebo had at least 50% pain relief. These small trials had low event rates and provided, at best, low-quality evidence for any outcome. The proportion of people with 'improved' or 'very much improved' pain was 45.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 30.1% with placebo in DPN (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.88; n = 493; 2 trials; very-low-quality evidence) and 23.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo in radiculopathy (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.20; n = 145).We found no trials in other types of neuropathic pain such as trigeminal neuralgia.Trial reports stated that most adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity. Based on moderate-quality evidence from the three DPN trials, serious adverse effects occurred in 8.3% with oxcarbazepine and 2.5% with placebo (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.20; n = 634; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful (serious adverse effect) outcome (NNTH) was 17 (95% CI 11 to 42). The RR for serious adverse effects in the radiculopathy trial was 3.13 (95% CI 0.65 to 14.98, n = 145). The fifth trial did not provide data.More people withdrew because of adverse effects with oxcarbazepine than with placebo (DPN: 25.6% with oxcarbazepine versus 6.8% with placebo; RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.40; radiculopathy: 42.3% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.23; mixed neuropathic pain: 13.5% with oxcarbazepine versus 1.2% with placebo; RR 11.51, 95% CI 1.54 to 86.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found little evidence to support the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain from radiculopathy and a mixture of neuropathies. Some very-low-quality evidence suggests efficacy but small trials, low event rates, heterogeneity in some measures and a high risk of publication bias means that we have very low confidence in the measures of effect. Adverse effects, serious adverse effects and adverse effects leading to discontinuation are probably more common with oxcarbazepine than placebo; however, the numbers of participants and event rates are low. More well-designed, multicentre RCTs investigating oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain are needed, and selective publication of studies or data should be avoided.

Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.A double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.

Mechanical ventilation for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease, is a fatal neurodegenerative disease. Neuromuscular respiratory failure is the most common cause of death, which usually occurs within two to five years of the disease onset. Supporting respiratory function with mechanical ventilation may improve survival and quality of life. This is the second update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of mechanical ventilation (tracheostomy-assisted ventilation and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) on survival, functional measures of disease progression, and quality of life in ALS, and to evaluate adverse events related to the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 30 January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving non-invasive or tracheostomy-assisted ventilation in participants with a clinical diagnosis of ALS, independent of the reported outcomes. We included comparisons with no intervention or the best standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the original review, four review authors independently selected studies for assessment. Two review authors reviewed searches for this update. All review authors independently extracted data from the full text of selected studies and assessed the risk of bias in studies that met the inclusion criteria. We attempted to obtain missing data where possible. We planned to collect adverse event data from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

For the original Cochrane Review, the review authors identified two RCTs involving 54 participants with ALS receiving NIV. There were no new RCTs or quasi-RCTs at the first update. One new RCT was identified in the second update but was excluded for the reasons outlined below.Incomplete data were available for one published study comparing early and late initiation of NIV (13 participants). We contacted the trial authors, who were not able to provide the missing data. The conclusions of the review were therefore based on a single study of 41 participants comparing NIV with standard care. Lack of (or uncertain) blinding represented a risk of bias for participant- and clinician-assessed outcomes such as quality of life, but it was otherwise a well-conducted study with a low risk of bias.The study provided moderate-quality evidence that overall median survival was significantly different between the group treated with NIV and the standard care group. The median survival in the NIV group was 48 days longer (219 days compared to 171 days for the standard care group (estimated 95% confidence interval 12 to 91 days, P = 0.0062)). This survival benefit was accompanied by an enhanced quality of life. On subgroup analysis, in the subgroup with normal to moderately impaired bulbar function (20 participants), median survival was 205 days longer (216 days in the NIV group versus 11 days in the standard care group, P = 0.0059), and quality of life measures were better than with standard care (low-quality evidence). In the participants with poor bulbar function (21 participants), NIV did not prolong survival or improve quality of life, although there was significant improvement in the mean symptoms domain of the Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index by some measures. Neither trial reported clinical data on intervention-related adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from a single RCT of NIV in 41 participants suggests that it significantly prolongs survival, and low-quality evidence indicates that it improves or maintains quality of life in people with ALS. Survival and quality of life were significantly improved in the subgroup of people with better bulbar function, but not in those with severe bulbar impairment. Adverse effects related to NIV should be systematically reported, as at present there is little information on this subject. More RCT evidence to support the use of NIV in ALS will be difficult to generate, as not offering NIV to the control group is no longer ethically justifiable. Future studies should examine the benefits of early intervention with NIV and establish the most appropriate timing for initiating NIV in order to obtain its maximum benefit. The effect of adding cough augmentation techniques to NIV also needs to be investigated in an RCT. Future studies should examine the health economics of NIV. Access to NIV remains restricted in many parts of the world, including Europe and North America. We need to understand the factors, personal and socioeconomic, that determine access to NIV.

Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

The role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT over placebo and some other non-surgical treatments, other trials have not.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of LLLT versus placebo and versus other non-surgical interventions in the management of CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 9 December 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. We checked the references of primary studies and review articles, and contacted trial authors for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion RCTs (irrespective of blinding, publication status or language) comparing LLLT versus placebo or non-surgical treatment for the management of CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials for inclusion and extracted the data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, calculated using Review Manager. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 22 trials randomising 1153 participants that were eligible for inclusion; nine trials (525 participants, 256 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with placebo, two (150 participants, 75 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with ultrasound, one compared LLLT with placebo and LLLT with ultrasound, two compared LLLT with steroid injection, and one trial each compared LLLT with other non-surgical interventions: fascial manipulation, application of a pulsed magnetic field, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), steroid injection, tendon gliding exercises, and applying a wrist splint combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Three studies compared LLLT as part of multiple interventions. Risk of bias varied across the studies, but was high or unclear in most assessed domains in most studies. Most studies were small, with few events, and effect estimates were generally imprecise and inconsistent; the combination of these factors led us to categorise the quality of evidence for most outcomes as very low or, for a small number, low. At short-term follow-up (less than three months), there was very low-quality evidence for any effect over placebo of LLLT on CTS for the primary outcome of Symptom Severity Score (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsening; MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.06) or Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsened disability; MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.09). At short-term (less than three months) follow-up, we are uncertain whether LLLT results in a greater improvement than placebo in visual analogue score (VAS) pain (scale 0 to 10, higher score represents worsening; MD -1.47, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.58) and several aspects of nerve conduction studies (motor nerve latency: higher score represents worsening; MD -0.09 ms, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; range 3.1 ms to 4.99 ms; sensory nerve latency: MD -0.10 ms, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.06; range 1.8 ms to 3.9 ms), as the quality of the evidence was very low. When compared with placebo at short-term follow-up, LLLT may slightly improve grip strength (MD 2.58 kg, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.95; range 14.2 kg to 25.23 kg) and finger-pinch strength (MD 0.94 kg, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44; range 4.35 kg to 5.7 kg); however, the quality of evidence was low. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength results reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as previously published. We are uncertain about the effect of LLLT in comparison to ultrasound at short-term follow-up for improvement in VAS pain (MD 2.81, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.40) and motor nerve latency (MD 0.61 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95), as the quality of evidence was very low. When compared with ultrasound at short-term follow-up, LLLT may result in slightly less improvement in finger-pinch strength (MD -0.71 kg, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.49) and motor nerve amplitude (MD -1.90 mV, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.18; range 7.10 mV to 9.70 mV); however, the quality of evidence was low. There was insufficient evidence to assess the long-term benefits of LLLT versus placebo or ultrasound. There was insufficient evidence to show whether LLLT is better or worse in the management of CTS than other non-surgical interventions. For all outcomes reported within these other comparisons, the quality of evidence was very low. There was insufficient evidence to assess adverse events, as only one study reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is of very low quality and we found no data to support any clinical effect of LLLT in treating CTS. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength met previously published MCIDs but these are likely to be overestimates of effect given the small studies and significant risk of bias. There is low or very low-quality evidence to suggest that LLLT is less effective than ultrasound in the management of CTS based on short-term, clinically significant improvements in pain and finger-pinch strength. There is insufficient evidence to support LLLT being better or worse than any other type of non-surgical treatment in the management of CTS. Any further research of LLLT should be definitive, blinded, and of high quality.

Immunotherapy for diabetic amyotrophy

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus (DM) sometimes present with acute or subacute, progressive, asymmetrical pain and weakness of the proximal lower limb muscles. The various names for the condition include diabetic amyotrophy, diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathies, diabetic femoral neuropathy or Bruns-Garland syndrome. Some studies suggest that diabetic amyotrophy may be an immune-mediated inflammatory microvasculitis causing ischaemic damage of the nerves. Immunotherapies would therefore be expected to be beneficial. This is the second update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised trials for the efficacy of any form of immunotherapy in the treatment of diabetic amyotrophy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 5 September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also contacted authors of relevant publications and other experts to obtain additional references, unpublished trials, and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We intended to include all randomised and quasi-randomised trials of any immunotherapy in participants with the condition fulfilling all the following: diabetes mellitus as defined by internationally recognised criteria; acute or subacute onset of pain and lower motor neuron weakness involving predominantly the proximal muscles of the lower limbs; weakness that is not confined to one nerve or nerve root distribution; and exclusion of other causes of lumbosacral radiculopathies and plexopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently examined all references retrieved by the search to select those meeting the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one completed placebo-controlled trial (N = 75) using intravenous methylprednisolone in diabetic amyotrophy (Dyck 2006). The results have not been fully published and were not available for analysis. The risk of bias was unclear because there was too little information to make a judgement, but we considered the trial at high risk of selective reporting. The published abstract did not report adverse events. We found no additional trials when the searches were updated in September 2016.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is presently no evidence from randomised trials to support a positive or negative effect of any immunotherapy in the treatment in diabetic amyotrophy.

Drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP) is an insidiously progressive sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy that affects elderly people. Although severe disability or handicap does not occur, CIAP reduces quality of life. CIAP is diagnosed in 10% to 25% of people referred for evaluation of polyneuropathy. There is a need to gather and review emerging evidence on treatments, as the number of people affected is likely to increase in ageing populations. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy for reducing disability and ameliorating neurological symptoms and associated impairments, and to assess any adverse effects of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016, we searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We searched two trials registries for ongoing trials. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and textbooks identified electronically, and we would have contacted authors and other experts in the field to identify additional studies if this seemed useful.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised (alternate or other systematic treatment allocation) trials that examined the effects of any drug therapy in people with CIAP at least one year after the onset of treatment. People with CIAP had to fulfil the following criteria: age 40 years or older, distal sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy, absence of systemic or other neurological disease, chronic clinical course not reaching a nadir in less than two months, exclusion of any recognised cause of the polyneuropathy by medical history taking, clinical or laboratory investigations, and electrophysiological studies in agreement with axonal polyneuropathy, without evidence of demyelinating features. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a significant improvement in disability. Secondary outcomes were change in the mean disability score, change in the proportion of participants who make use of walking aids, change in the mean Medical Research Council sum score, degree of pain relief and/or reduction of other positive sensory symptoms, change in the proportion of participants with pain or other positive sensory symptoms, and frequency of adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed the results of the literature search and extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data of all potentially relevant trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 39 studies and assessed them for possible inclusion in the review, but we excluded all of them because of insufficient quality or lack of relevance. We summarised evidence from non-randomised studies in the Discussion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Even though CIAP has been clearly described and delineated, no adequate randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical treatment trials have been performed. In their absence there is no proven efficacious drug therapy.