Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis

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

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for progressive multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis

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

We will perform a network meta‐analysis to assess the relative effectiveness and safety of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive treatments for people with multiple sclerosis in progressive forms of the condition.

Interventions for preventing falls in people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most prevalent diseases of the central nervous system with recent prevalence estimates indicating that MS directly affects 2.3 million people worldwide. Fall rates of 56% have been reported among people with MS in a recent meta-analysis. Clinical guidelines do not outline an evidence-based approach to falls interventions in MS. There is a need for synthesised information regarding the effectiveness of falls prevention interventions in MS.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce falls in people with MS. Specific objectives included comparing: (1) falls prevention interventions to controls and; (2) different types of falls prevention interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2018 Issue 9); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to 12 September 2018); Embase (EMBASE.com) (1974 to 12 September 2018); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost) (1981 to 12 September 2018); Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (Bireme) (1982 to 12 September 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; PsycINFO (1806 to 12 September 2018; and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (1999 to 12 September 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials of interventions to reduce falls in people with MS. We included trials that examined falls prevention interventions compared to controls or different types of falls prevention interventions. Primary outcomes included: falls rate, risk of falling, number of falls per person and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies for selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used a rate ratio (RaR) and 95% confidence interval to compare falls rate between groups. For risk of falling, we used a risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI based on the number of fallers in each group.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 839 people with MS (12 to 177 individuals) were randomised in the 13 included trials. The mean age of the participants was 52 years (36 to 62 years). The percentage of women participants ranged from 59% to 85%. Studies included people with all types of MS. Most trials compared an exercise intervention with no intervention or different types of falls prevention interventions. We included two comparisons: (1) Falls prevention intervention versus control and (2) Falls prevention intervention versus another falls prevention intervention. The most common interventions tested were exercise as a single intervention, education as a single intervention, functional electrical stimulation and exercise plus education. The risk of bias of the included studies mixed, with nine studies demonstrating high risk of bias related to one or more aspects of their methodology. The evidence was uncertain regarding the effects of exercise versus control on falls rate (RaR of 0.68; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06; very low-quality evidence), number of fallers (RR of 0.85; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.43; low-quality evidence) and adverse events (RR of 1.25; 95% CI 0.26 to 6.03; low-quality evidence). Data were not available on quality of life outcomes comparing exercise to control. The majority of other comparisons between falls interventions and controls demonstrated no evidence of effect in favour of either group for all primary outcomes. For the comparison of different falls prevention interventions, the heterogeneity of intervention types across studies prohibited the pooling of data. In relation to secondary outcomes, there was evidence of an effect in favour of exercise interventions compared to controls for balance function with a SMD of 0.50 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.92), self-reported mobility with a SMD of 16.30 (95% CI 9.34 to 23.26) and objective mobility with a SMD of 0.28 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.50). Secondary outcomes were not assessed under the GRADE criteria and results must be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence regarding the effects of interventions for preventing falls in MS is sparse and uncertain. The evidence base demonstrates mixed risk of bias, with very low to low certainty of the evidence. There is some evidence in favour of exercise interventions for the improvement of balance function and mobility. However, this must be interpreted with caution as these secondary outcomes were not assessed under the GRADE criteria and as the results represent data from a small number of studies. Robust RCTs examining the effectiveness of multifactorial falls interventions on falls outcomes are needed.

Palliative care interventions for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have complex symptoms and different types of needs. These demands include how to manage the burden of physical disability as well as how to organise daily life, restructure social roles in the family and at work, preserve personal identity and community roles, keep self-sufficiency in personal care, and how to be part of an integrated care network. Palliative care teams are trained to keep open full and competent lines of communication about symptoms and disease progression, advanced care planning, and end-of-life issues and wishes. Teams create a treatment plan for the total management of symptoms, supporting people and families on decision-making. Despite advances in research and the existence of many interventions to reduce disease activity or to slow the progression of MS, this condition remains a life-limiting disease with symptoms that impact negatively the lives of people with it and their families.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of palliative care interventions compared to usual care for people with any form of multiple sclerosis: relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), primary-progressive MS (PPMS), and progressive-relapsing MS (PRMS) We also aimed to compare the effects of different palliative care interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 October 2018, we conducted a literature search in the specialised register of the Cochrane MS and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group, which contains trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched PsycINFO, PEDro and Opengrey. We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews. We contacted researchers in palliative care and multiple sclerosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as well as the first phase of cross-over trials. We included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus usual care. We also included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus another type of palliative interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We summarised key results and certainty of evidence in a 'Summary of Finding' table that reported outcomes at six or more months of post-intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies (146 participants) met our selection criteria. Two studies compared multidisciplinary, fast-track palliative care versus multidisciplinary standard care while on a waiting-list control, and one study compared a multidisciplinary palliative approach versus multidisciplinary standard care at different time points (12, 16, and 24 weeks). Two were RCTs with parallel design (total 94 participants) and one was a cross-over design (52 participants). The three studies assessed palliative care as a home-based intervention. One of the three studies included participants with 'neurodegenerative diseases', with MS people being a subset of the randomised population. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' tool.We found no evidence of differences between intervention and control groups in long-time follow-up (> six months post-intervention) for the following outcomes: mean change in health-related quality of life (SEIQoL - higher scores mean better quality of life; MD 4.80, 95% CI -12.32 to 21.92; participants = 62; studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12; participants = 76; studies = 1, 22 events, low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.52; participants = 76; studies = 1, 10 events, low-certainty evidence).The three included studies did not assess the following outcomes at long term follow-up (> six months post intervention): fatigue, anxiety, depression, disability, cognitive function, relapse-free survival, and sustained progression-free survival.We did not find any trial that compared different types of palliative care with each other.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether palliative care interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There is low- or very low-certainty evidence regarding the difference between palliative care interventions versus usual care for long-term health-related quality of life, adverse events, and hospital admission in patients with MS. For intermediate-term follow-up, we are also uncertain about the effects of palliative care for the outcomes: health-related quality of life (measured by different assessments: SEIQoL or MSIS), disability, anxiety, and depression.

Route of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of cerebrospinal fluid-shunt infection

BACKGROUND

The main complication of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt surgery is shunt infection. Prevention of these shunt infections consists of the perioperative use of antibiotics that can be administered in five different ways: orally; intravenously; intrathecally; topically; and via the implantation of antibiotic-impregnated shunt catheters.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis (i.e. oral, intravenous, intrathecal, topical and via antibiotic-impregnated shunt catheters) on CSF-shunt infections in persons treated for hydrocephalus using internalised CSF shunts.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic electronic search without restrictions on language, date or publication type. We performed the search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase, with the help of the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group. The search was performed in January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that studied the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis, in any dose or administration route, for the prevention of CSF-shunt infection in patients that were treated with an internal cerebrospinal fluid shunt. Patients with external shunts were not eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by referral to an independent researcher within our department when necessary. Analyses were also performed by at least two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 11 small randomised controlled trials, containing 1109 participants, in this systematic review. Three of these studies included solely children, and the remaining eight included participants of all ages. Most studies were limited to the evaluation of ventriculoperitoneal shunts. However, five studies included participants with ventriculoatrial shunts, of which one study contained four participants with a subduroperitoneal shunt. We judged four out of 11 (36%) trials at unclear risk of bias, while the remaining seven trials (64%) scored high risk of bias in one or more of the components assessed.We analysed all included studies in order to estimate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the proportion of shunt infections regardless of administration route. Although the quality of evidence in these studies was low, there may be a positive effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the number of participants who had shunt infections (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84), meaning a 55% reduction in the number of participants who had shunt infection compared with standard care or placebo.Within the different administration routes, only within intravenous administration of antibiotic prophylaxis there may be evidence of an effect on the risk of shunt infections (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90). However, this was the only route that contained more than two studies (8 studies; 797 participants). Evidence was uncertain for both, intrathecal administration of antibiotics (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.93, 2 studies; 797 participants; low quality evidence) and antibiotic impregnated catheters (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.24, 1 study; 110 participants; very low quality evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis may have a positive effect on lowering the number of participants who had shunt infections. However, the quality of included studies was low and the effect is not consistent within the different routes of administration that have been analysed. It is therefore uncertain whether prevention of shunt infection varies by different antibiotic agents, different administration routes, timing and doses; or by characteristics of patients, e.g. children and adults. The results of the review should be seen as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive, and the results should be confirmed in adequately powered trials or large multicentre studies in order to obtain high-quality evidence in the field of ventricular shunt infection prevention.

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) in people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a leading cause of neurological disability in young adults. The most widely accepted hypothesis regarding its pathogenesis is that it is an immune-mediated disease. It has been hypothesised that intraluminal defects, compression, or hypoplasia in the internal jugular or azygos veins may be important factors in the pathogenesis of MS. This condition has been named 'chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency' (CCSVI). It has been suggested that these intraluminal defects restrict the normal blood flow from the brain and spinal cord, causing the deposition of iron in the brain and the eventual triggering of an auto-immune response. The proposed treatment for CCSVI is venous percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), which is claimed to improve the blood flow in the brain thereby alleviating some of the symptoms of MS. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and safety of venous PTA in people with MS and CCSVI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group's Specialised Register up to 30 August 2018, CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library 2018, issue 8), MEDLINE up to 30 August 2018, Embase up to 30 August 2018, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov., the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform. We examined the bibliographies of the included and excluded studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which PTA and sham interventions were compared in adults with MS and CCSVI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We reported results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects model; and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (238 participants) in this update. One hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised to PTA and 104 to sham treatment. We attributed low risk of bias to two (67%) studies for sequence generation and two (67%) studies for performance bias. All studies were at a low risk of detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other potential sources of bias.There was moderate-quality evidence to suggest that venous PTA did not increase the proportion of patients who had operative or post-operative serious adverse events compared with the sham procedure (RR 3.33, 95% CI 0.36 to 30.44; 3 studies, 238 participants); nor did it increase the proportion of patients who improved on a functional composite measure including walking control, balance, manual dexterity, postvoid residual urine volume, and visual acuity over 12-month follow-up (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30; 1 study, 110 participants); nor did it reduce the proportion of patients who experienced new relapses at six- or 12-month follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49; 3 studies, 235 participants). There was no effect of venous PTA on disability worsening measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale, which was reported at follow-up intervals of six months (one study), 11 months (one study) and 12 months (one study). Quality of life was reported in two studies with no difference between treatment groups. Moderate or severe pain during or post venography was reported in both PTA and sham-procedure participants in all included studies. Venous PTA was not effective in restoring blood flow assessed at one-month (one study) or 12-month follow-up (one study).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified moderate-quality evidence that, compared with sham procedure, venous PTA intervention did not provide benefit on patient-centred outcomes (disability, physical or cognitive functions, relapses, quality of life) in people with MS. Venous PTA has proven to be a safe technique but in view of the available evidence of its ineffectiveness, this intervention cannot be recommended in people with MS. All ongoing trials were withdrawn or terminated and hence this updated review is conclusive. No further randomised clinical studies are needed.

Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a major cause of chronic, neurological disability, with a significant long-term disability burden, often requiring comprehensive rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate evidence from published Cochrane Reviews of clinical trials to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions for people with MS (pwMS), to improve patient outcomes, and to highlight current gaps in knowledge.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to December 2017, to identify Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effectiveness of organised rehabilitation interventions for pwMS. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included reviews, using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) tool, and the quality of the evidence for reported outcomes, using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, we included 15 reviews published in the Cochrane Library, comprising 164 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four controlled clinical trials, with a total of 10,396 participants. The included reviews evaluated a wide range of rehabilitation interventions, including: physical activity and exercise therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), whole-body vibration, occupational therapy, cognitive and psychological interventions, nutritional and dietary supplements, vocational rehabilitation, information provision, telerehabilitation, and interventions for the management of spasticity. We assessed all reviews to be of high to moderate methodological quality, based on R-AMSTAR criteria.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that physical therapeutic modalities (exercise and physical activities) improved functional outcomes (mobility, muscular strength), reduced impairment (fatigue), and improved participation (quality of life). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that inpatient or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes led to longer-term gains at the levels of activity and participation, and interventions that provided information improved patient knowledge. Low-qualitty evidence suggested that neuropsychological interventions, symptom-management programmes (spasticity), whole body vibration, and telerehabilitation improved some patient outcomes. Evidence for other rehabilitation modalities was inconclusive, due to lack of robust studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that regular specialist evaluation and follow-up to assess the needs of patients with all types of MS for appropriate rehabilitation interventions may be of benefit, although the certainty of evidence varies across the different types of interventions evaluated by the reviews. Structured, multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes and physical therapy (exercise or physical activities) can improve functional outcomes (mobility, muscle strength, aerobic capacity), and quality of life. Overall, the evidence for many rehabilitation interventions should be interpreted cautiously, as the majority of included reviews did not include data from current studies. More studies, with appropriate design, which report the type and intensity of modalities and their cost-effectiveness are needed to address the current gaps in knowledge.

Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common and significantly impacts on the lives of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Various types of non-pharmacological interventions are widely used, both in hospital and ambulatory/mobility settings to improve pain control in pwMS, but the effectiveness and safety of many non-pharmacological modalities is still unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacological therapies for the management of chronic pain in pwMS. Specific questions to be addressed by this review include the following.Are non-pharmacological interventions (unidisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary rehabilitation) effective in reducing chronic pain in pwMS?What type of non-pharmacological interventions (unidisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary rehabilitation) are effective (least and most effective) and in what setting, in reducing chronic pain in pwMS?

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search was performed using the specialised register of the Cochrane MS and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group, using the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register which contains CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACUS, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 10 December 2017. Handsearching of relevant journals and screening of reference lists of relevant studies was carried out.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs)and cross-over studies that compared non-pharmacological therapies with a control intervention for managing chronic pain in pwMS were included. Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool for best-evidence synthesis. Pooling data for meta-analysis was not possible due to methodological, clinical and statistically heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 10 RCTs with 565 participants which investigated different non-pharmacological interventions for the management of chronic pain in MS fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. The non-pharmacological interventions evaluated included: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), psychotherapy (telephone self-management, hypnosis and electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial direct stimulation (tDCS), hydrotherapy (Ai Chi) and reflexology.There is very low-level evidence for the use of non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain such as TENS, Ai Chi, tDCS, tRNS, telephone-delivered self-management program, EEG biofeedback and reflexology in pain intensity in pwMS. Although there were improved changes in pain scores and secondary outcomes (such as fatigue, psychological symptoms, spasm in some interventions), these were limited by methodological biases within the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the use of a wide range of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic pain in pwMS, the evidence for these interventions is still limited or insufficient, or both. More studies with robust methodology and greater numbers of participants are needed to justify the effect of these interventions for the management of chronic pain in pwMS.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. These include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies, and non-pharmacological interventions, among others. While people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self manage their disease, it has been shown that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor, therefore guidelines recommend clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS. However, only a few information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review was to evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes, Further objectives were to evaluate the components and the developmental processes of the complex interventions used, to highlight the quantity and the certainty of the research evidence available, and to set an agenda for future research.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and clinical trials registries (29 November 2017) as well as other sources. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials, and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT (73 participants), which when added to the 10 previously included RCTs resulted in a total of 11 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (1387 participants overall; mean age, range: 31 to 51; percentage women, range: 63% to 100%; percentage relapsing-remitting MS course, range: 45% to 100%). The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self care strategies, fatigue management, family planning, and general health promotion. The active intervention components included decision aids, decision coaching, educational programmes, self care programmes, and personal interviews with physicians. All studies used one or more components, but the number and extent differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All five studies assessing MS-related knowledge (505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions, indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results on decision making (five studies, 793 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (six studies, 671 participants; low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were detected in the seven studies reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. The included studies in this review reported no negative side effects of providing disease-related information to people with MS. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Respiratory muscle training for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system, affecting approximately 2.5 million people worldwide. People with MS may experience limitations in muscular strength and endurance - including the respiratory muscles, affecting functional performance and exercise capacity. Respiratory muscle weakness can also lead to diminished performance on coughing, which may result in (aspiration) pneumonia or even acute ventilatory failure, complications that frequently cause death in MS. Training of the respiratory muscles might improve respiratory function and cough efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of respiratory muscle training versus any other type of training or no training for respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function and clinical outcomes in people with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (3 February 2017), which contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS and the trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two authors independently screened records yielded by the search, handsearched reference lists of review articles and primary studies, checked trial registers for protocols, and contacted experts in the field to identify further published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of respiratory muscle training versus any control in people with MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted study characteristics and study data from included RCTs, and two other reviewers independently cross-checked all extracted data. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. When at least two RCTs provided data for the same type of outcome, we performed meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs, comprising 195 participants with MS. Two RCTs investigated inspiratory muscle training with a threshold device; three RCTs, expiratory muscle training with a threshold device; and one RCT, regular breathing exercises. Eighteen participants (˜ 10%) dropped out; trials reported no serious adverse events.We pooled and analyzed data of 5 trials (N=137) for both inspiratory and expiratory muscle training, using a fixed-effect model for all but one outcome. Compared to no active control, meta-analysis showed that inspiratory muscle training resulted in no significant difference in maximal inspiratory pressure (mean difference (MD) 6.50 cmH₂O, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.39 to 20.38, P = 0.36, I² = 0%) or maximal expiratory pressure (MD -8.22 cmH₂O, 95% CI -26.20 to 9.77, P = 0.37, I² = 0%), but there was a significant benefit on the predicted maximal inspiratory pressure (MD 20.92 cmH₂O, 95% CI 6.03 to 35.81, P = 0.006, I² = 18%). Meta-analysis with a random-effects model failed to show a significant difference in predicted maximal expiratory pressure (MD 5.86 cmH₂O, 95% CI -10.63 to 22.35, P = 0.49, I² = 55%). These studies did not report outcomes for health-related quality of life.Three RCTS compared expiratory muscle training versus no active control or sham training. Under a fixed-effect model, meta-analysis failed to show a significant difference between groups with regard to maximal expiratory pressure (MD 8.33 cmH₂O, 95% CI -0.93 to 17.59, P = 0.18, I² = 42%) or maximal inspiratory pressure (MD 3.54 cmH₂O, 95% CI -5.04 to 12.12, P = 0.42, I² = 41%). One trial assessed quality of life, finding no differences between groups.For all predetermined secondary outcomes, such as forced expiratory volume, forced vital capacity and peak flow pooling was not possible. However, two trials on inspiratory muscle training assessed fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (range of scores 0-56 ), finding no difference between groups (MD, -0.28 points, 95% CI-0.95 to 0.39, P = 0.42, I² = 0%). Due to the low number of studies included, we could not perform cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analyses. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for adverse events, no serious adverse were mentioned in any of the included trials.The quality of evidence was low for all outcomes because of limitations in design and implementation as well as imprecision of results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low-quality evidence that resistive inspiratory muscle training with a resistive threshold device is moderately effective postintervention for improving predicted maximal inspiratory pressure in people with mild to moderate MS, whereas expiratory muscle training showed no significant effects. The sustainability of the favourable effect of inspiratory muscle training is unclear, as is the impact of the observed effects on quality of life.

Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Alemtuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that alters the circulating lymphocyte pool, causing prolonged lymphopenia, thus remoulding the immune repertoire that accompanies homeostatic lymphocyte reconstitution. It has been proved more effective than interferon (IFN) 1a for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a in the treatment of people with RRMS to prevent disease activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register (1 February 2017) which, among other sources, contains records from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDRO and the trial registry databases Clinical Trials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All double-blind, randomised, controlled trials comparing intravenous alemtuzumab (12 mg per day or 24 mg per day on five consecutive days during the first month and on three consecutive days at months 12 and 24) versus subcutaneous IFN beta 1a (22 μg or 44 μg three times per week (Rebif) or intramuscular injection 30 μg once a week (Avonex)) in people of any gender and age with RRMS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials involving 1694 participants. All trials compared alemtuzumab 12 mg per day or 24 mg per day versus IFN beta 1a for treating RRMS. In CAMMS223, participants received either subcutaneous IFN beta 1a 44 μg three times per week or annual intravenous cycles of alemtuzumab (at a dose of 12 mg per day or 24 mg per day) for 36 months. In CARE-MS I and CARE-MS II, participants received subcutaneous IFN beta 1a 44 μg three times per week or annual intravenous cycles of alemtuzumab 12 mg per day for 24 months. The methodological quality was good for all three studies.In the alemtuzumab 12 mg per day group, the results showed statistically significant difference in reducing relapses (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.70), preventing disease progression (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79) and developing new T2 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93) after 24 and 36 months' follow-up, but found no statistically significant difference in the changes of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score (mean difference (MD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.03). In the alemtuzumab 24 mg per day group, the results showed statistically significant differences in reducing relapses (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62), preventing disease progression (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84) and the changes of EDSS score (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.49) after 36 months' follow-up.All three trials reported adverse events and serious adverse events. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08) and the number of participants who experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83 to 4.54).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that annual intravenous cycles of alemtuzumab at a dose of 12 mg per day or 24 mg per day reduces the proportion of participants with relapses, disease progression, change of EDSS score and developing new T2 lesions on MRI over 24 to 36 months in comparison with subcutaneous IFN beta-1a 44 μg three times per week.Alemtuzumab appeared to be relatively well tolerated. The most frequently reported adverse events were infusion-associated reactions, infections and autoimmune events. The use of alemtuzumab requires careful monitoring so that potentially serious adverse effects can be treated early and effectively.

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Interferons-beta (IFNs-beta) and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 20 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs' prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have both increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality of life. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through the analysis of head-to-head trials.This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis' (first published in the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7).

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (08 August 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials were included and five trials contributed to this review with data. A total of 2904 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1704) and GA (1200). The treatment duration was three years for one study, two years for the other four RCTs while one study was stopped early (after one year). The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (three trials, 466 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Three trials are still ongoing, one of them completed.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or new contrast-enhancing T1 lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.39, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of people with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. people with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality-of-life measures.

Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies focus on treating exacerbations, preventing new exacerbations and avoiding the progression of disability. However, at present there is no effective treatment that is capable of safely and effectively reaching these objectives. This has led to the development and investigation of new drugs. Recent clinical trials suggest that alemtuzumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against cell surface CD52, could be a promising option for MS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and effectiveness of alemtuzumab used alone or associated with other treatments to decrease disease activity in patients with any form of MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (30 April 2015), which contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and the trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no restriction on the source, publication date or language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults diagnosed with any form of MS according to the McDonald criteria, comparing alemtuzumab alone or associated with other medications, at any dose and for any duration, versus placebo or any other active drug therapy or alemtuzumab in other dose, regimen or duration. The co-primary outcomes were relapse-free survival, sustained disease progression and number of participants with at least one of any adverse events, including serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors performed study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. A third review author checked the process for accuracy. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias of the studies included in the review. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of the body of evidence. To measure the treatment effect on dichotomous outcomes we used the risk ratio (RR); for the treatment effect on continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) and for time-to-event outcomes we used hazard ratio (HR). We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for these measures. When there was no heterogeneity, we used a fixed-effect model to pool data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs (1713 participants) fulfilled the selection criteria and we included them in the review. All three trials compared alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Patients were treatment-naive in the CARE-MS and CAMMS223 studies. The CARE-MS II study included patients with at least one relapse while being treated with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate. Alemtuzumab was given for 12 or 24 months; for some outcomes, the follow-up period reached 36 months. The regimens were (a) 12 mg or 24 mg per day administered intravenously, once a day for five consecutive days at month 0 and 12 or (b) 24 mg per day, intravenously, once a day for three consecutive days at month 12 and 24. The patients in the other arm of the trials received interferon beta-1a 44 μg subcutaneously three times weekly after dose titration.At 24 months, alemtuzumab 12 mg was associated with: (a) higher relapse-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.60; 1248 participants, two studies, moderate quality evidence); (b) higher sustained disease progression-free survival (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.87; 1191 participants; two studies; moderate quality evidence); (c) a slightly higher number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06; 1248 participants; two studies; moderate quality evidence); (d) a lower number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91; 1238 participants; two studies; I(2) = 80%); and (e) a lower number of dropouts (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.41; 1248 participants; two studies, I(2) = 29%; low quality evidence).At 36 months, alemtuzumab 24 mg was associated with: (a) higher relapse-free survival (45 versus 17; HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; one study; 221 participants); (b) a higher sustained disease progression-free survival (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69; one study; 221 participants); and (c) no statistical difference in the rate of participants with at least one adverse event. We did not find any study that reported any of the following outcomes: rate of participants free of clinical disease activity, quality of life, fatigue or change in the numbers of MRI T2- and T1-weighted lesions after treatment. It was not possible to perform subgroup analyses according to disease type and disability at baseline due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with relapsing-remitting MS, alemtuzumab 12 mg was better than subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the following outcomes assessed at 24 months: relapse-free survival, sustained disease progression-free survival, number of participants with at least one adverse event and number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on MRI. The quality of the evidence for these results was low to moderate. Alemtuzumab 24 mg seemed to be better than subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for relapse-free survival and sustained disease progression-free survival, at 36 months.More randomised clinical trials are needed to evaluate the effects of alemtuzumab on other forms of MS and compared with other therapeutic options. These new studies should assess additional relevant outcomes such as the rate of participants free of clinical disease activity, quality of life, fatigue and adverse events (individual rates, serious adverse events and long-term adverse events). Moreover, these new studies should evaluate other doses and durations of alemtuzumab course.

Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review "Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12).Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system. It is clinically characterized by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, often leading to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS aim to prevent occurrence of relapses and disability progression. Teriflunomide is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a DMT for adults with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the absolute and comparative effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon beta (IFNβ), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) for modifying the disease course in people with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Specialised Trials Register (30 September 2015). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to September 2015) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of teriflunomide and the pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials with a length of follow-up of one year or greater evaluating teriflunomide, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved DMDs for people with MS without restrictions regarding dose, administration frequency and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies involving 3231 people evaluated the efficacy and safety of teriflunomide 7 mg and 14 mg, alone or with add-on IFNβ, versus placebo or IFNβ-1a for adults with relapsing forms of MS and an entry Expanded Disability Status Scale score of less than 5.5.Overall, there were obvious clinical heterogeneities due to diversities in study designs or interventions and methodological heterogeneities across studies. All studies had a high risk of detection bias for relapse assessment and a high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Among them, three studies additionally had a high risk of attrition bias due to a high dropout rate and two studies had an unclear risk of attrition bias. The studies of combination therapy with IFNβ (650 participants) and the study with IFNβ-1a as controls (324 participants) also had a high risk for performance bias and a lack of power due to the limited sample.Two studies evaluated the benefit and the safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy versus placebo over a period of one year (1169 participants) or two years (1088 participants). A meta-analysis was not conducted. Compared to placebo, administration of teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduced the number of participants with at least one relapse over one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.87, P value = 0.001 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75, P value < 0.00001 with 14 mg/day) or two years (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, P value = 0.03 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93, P value = 0.004 with 14 days). Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression over one year (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, P value = 0.006) or two years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, P value = 0.02). When taking the effect of drop-outs into consideration, the likely-case scenario analyses still showed a benefit in reducing the number of participants with at least one relapse, but not for the number of participants with disability progression. Both doses also reduced the annualized relapse rate and the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions over two years. Quality of evidence for relapse outcomes at one year or at two years was low, while for disability progression at one year or at two years was very low.When compared to IFNβ-1a, teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day had a similar efficacy to IFNβ-1a in reducing the proportion of participants with at least one relapse over one year, while teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day was inferior to IFNβ-1a (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.67, P value = 0.14; 215 participants with 14 mg/day and RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, P value < 0.0001; 213 participants with 7 mg/day). However, the quality of evidence was very low.In terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with teriflunomide were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse events had a dose-related effects and rarely led to treatment discontinuation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was low-quality evidence to support that teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduces both the number of participants with at least one relapse and the annualized relapse rate over one year or two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression and delayed the progression of disability over one year or two years, but the quality of the evidence was very low. The quality of available data was too low to evaluate the benefit teriflunomide as monotherapy versus IFNβ-1a or as combination therapy with IFNβ. The common adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse effects were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity, but had a dose-related effect. New studies of high quality and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the comparative benefit of teriflunomide on these outcomes and the safety in comparison with other DMTs.

Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system affecting an estimated 1.3 million people worldwide. It is characterised by a variety of disabling symptoms of which excessive fatigue is the most frequent. Fatigue is often reported as the most invalidating symptom in people with MS. Various mechanisms directly and indirectly related to the disease and physical inactivity have been proposed to contribute to the degree of fatigue. Exercise therapy can induce physiological and psychological changes that may counter these mechanisms and reduce fatigue in MS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of exercise therapy compared to a no-exercise control condition or another intervention on fatigue, measured with self-reported questionnaires, of people with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Specialised Register, which, among other sources, contains trials from: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to October 2014), CINAHL (from 1981 to October 2014), LILACS (from 1982 to October 2014), PEDro (from 1999 to October 2014), and Clinical trials registries (October 2014). Two review authors independently screened the reference lists of identified trials and related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy or other interventions for adults with MS that included subjective fatigue as an outcome. In these trials, fatigue should have been measured using questionnaires that primarily assessed fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires that measured fatigue or sub-scales of questionnaires not primarily designed for the assessment of fatigue but explicitly used as such.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the articles, extracted data, and determined methodological quality of the included trials. Methodological quality was determined by means of the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool and the PEDro scale. The combined body of evidence was summarised using the GRADE approach. The results were aggregated using meta-analysis for those trials that provided sufficient data to do so.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five trials, studying 69 exercise interventions, were eligible for this review, including 2250 people with MS. The prescribed exercise interventions were categorised as endurance training (23 interventions), muscle power training (nine interventions), task-oriented training (five interventions), mixed training (15 interventions), or 'other' (e.g. yoga; 17 interventions). Thirty-six included trials (1603 participants) provided sufficient data on the outcome of fatigue for meta-analysis. In general, exercise interventions were studied in mostly participants with the relapsing-remitting MS phenotype, and with an Expanded Disability Status Scale less than 6.0. Based on 26 trials that used a non-exercise control, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.73 to -0.33; P value < 0.01). However, there was significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) > 58%). The mean methodological quality, as well as the combined body of evidence, was moderate. When considering the different types of exercise therapy, we found a significant effect on fatigue in favour of exercise therapy compared to no exercise for endurance training (SMDfixed effect -0.43, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.17; P value < 0.01), mixed training (SMDrandom effect -0.73, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.23; P value < 0.01), and 'other' training (SMDfixed effect -0.54, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.29; P value < 0.01). Across all studies, one fall was reported. Given the number of MS relapses reported for the exercise condition (N = 25) and non-exercise control condition (N = 26), exercise does not seem to be associated with a significant risk of a MS relapse. However, in general, MS relapses were defined and reported poorly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise therapy can be prescribed in people with MS without harm. Exercise therapy, and particularly endurance, mixed, or 'other' training, may reduce self reported fatigue. However, there are still some important methodological issues to overcome. Unfortunately, most trials did not explicitly include people who experienced fatigue, did not target the therapy on fatigue specifically, and did not use a validated measure of fatigue as the primary measurement of outcome.

WITHDRAWN: Anticholinergics for urinary symptoms in multiple sclerosis

This review has been withdrawn for the following reasons:

‐ a review author contravenes Cochrane's Commercial Sponsorship Policy. This policy ensures the independence of Cochrane reviews by making sure that there is no bias associated with commercial conflicts of interest in the conduct of Cochrane reviews. The author was employed by the biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca and cannot say with certainty that the company did not produce or have any financial interest in the interventions in this review

‐ the review is substantially out of date

To view the published versions of this article, please click the 'Other versions' tab.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Dimethyl fumarate for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) often leads to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. The ideal target of disease-modifying therapy for MS is to prevent disability worsening and improve quality of life. Dimethyl fumarate is considered to have an immunomodulatory activity and neuroprotective effect. It has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency as a first-line therapy for adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RMSS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and safety of dimethyl fumarate as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other approved disease-modifying drugs (interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, alemtuzumab) for patients with MS. 

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (4 June 2014). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to June 2014) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of dimethyl fumarate and the Biogen Idec Medical Information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials (RCTs) with a length of follow-up equal to or greater than one year evaluating dimethyl fumarate, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved disease-modifying drugs for patients with MS without restrictions regarding dosage, administration frequency and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs were included, involving 2667 adult patients with RRMS to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosages of dimethyl fumarate (240 mg orally three times daily or twice daily) by direct comparison with placebo for two years. Among them, a subsample of 1221 (45.8%) patients were selected to participate in MRI evaluations by each study site with MRI capabilities itself. No powered head-to-head study with an active treatment comparator has been found. Meta-analyses showed that dimethyl fumarate both three times daily and twice daily reduced the number of patients with a relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.66, P < 0.00001 and 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively) or disability worsening (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87, P = 0.0009 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81, P = 0.0001, respectively) over two years, compared to placebo. The treatment effects were decreased in the likely-case scenario analyses taking the effect of dropouts into consideration. Both dosages also reduced the annualised relapse rate. Data of active lesions on MRI scans were not combined because there was a high risk of selection bias for MRI outcomes and imprecision of MRI data in both studies, as well as an obvious heterogeneity between the studies. In terms of safety profile, both dosages increased the risk for adverse events and the risk for drug discontinuation due to adverse events. The most common adverse events included flushing and gastrointestinal events (upper abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea). Uncommon adverse events included lymphopenia and leukopenia, but they were more likely to happen with dimethyl fumarate than with placebo (high dosage: RR 5.25, 95% CI 2.20 to 12.51, P = 0.0002 and 5.23, 95% CI 2.47 to 11.07, P < 0.0001, respectively; low dosage: RR 5.69, 95% CI 2.40 to 13.46, P < 0.0001 and 6.53, 95% CI 3.13 to 13.64, P < 0.00001, respectively). Both studies had a high attrition bias resulting from the unbalanced reasons for dropouts among groups. Quality of evidence for relapse outcome was moderate, but for disability worsening was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence to support that dimethyl fumarate at a dose of 240 mg orally three times daily or twice daily reduces both the number of patients with a relapse and the annualised relapse rate over two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. However, the quality of the evidence to support the benefit in reducing the number of patients with disability worsening is low. There is no high-quality data available to evaluate the benefit on MRI outcomes. The common adverse effects such as flushing and gastrointestinal events are mild-to-moderate for most patients. Lymphopenia and leukopenia are uncommon adverse events but significantly associated with dimethyl fumarate. Both dosages of dimethyl fumarate have similar benefit and safety profile, which supports the option of low-dose administration. New studies of high quality and long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of dimethyl fumarate on prevention of disability worsening and to observe the long-term adverse effects including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Telerehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Telerehabilitation, an emerging method, extends rehabilitative care beyond the hospital, and facilitates multifaceted, often psychotherapeutic approaches to modern management of patients using telecommunication technology at home or in the community. Although a wide range of telerehabilitation interventions are trialed in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), evidence for their effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation intervention in pwMS for improved patient outcomes. Specifically, this review addresses the following questions: does telerehabilitation achieve better outcomes compared with traditional face-to-face intervention; and what types of telerehabilitation interventions are effective, in which setting and influence which specific outcomes (impairment, activity limitation and participation)?

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a literature search using the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group Specialised Register( 9 July, 2014.) We handsearched the relevant journals and screened the reference lists of identified studies, and contacted authors for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that reported telerehabilitation intervention/s in pwMS and compared them with some form of control intervention (such as lower level or different types of intervention, minimal intervention, waiting-list controls or no treatment (or usual care); interventions given in different settings) in adults with MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of studies using the GRADEpro software (GRADEpro 2008) for best-evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis was not possible due to marked methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity between included trials and between measurement tools used. Hence, we performed a best-evidence synthesis using a qualitative analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs, one with two reports, (N = 531 participants, 469 included in analyses) investigated a variety of telerehabilitation interventions in adults with MS. The mean age of participants varied from 41 to 52 years (mean 46.5 years) and mean years since diagnosis from 7.7 to 19.0 years (mean 12.3 years). The majority of the participants were women (proportion ranging from 56% to 87%, mean 74%) and with a relapsing-remitting course of MS. These interventions were complex, with more than one rehabilitation component and included physical activity, educational, behavioural and symptom management programmes.All studies scored 'low' on the methodological quality assessment. Overall, the review found 'low-level' evidence for telerehabilitation interventions in reducing short-term disability and symptoms such as fatigue. There was also 'low-level' evidence supporting telerehabilitation in the longer term for improved functional activities, impairments (such as fatigue, pain, insomnia); and participation measured by quality of life and psychological outcomes. There were limited data on process evaluation (participants'/therapists' satisfaction) and no data available for cost effectiveness. There were no adverse events reported as a result of telerehabilitation interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently limited evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation in improving functional activities, fatigue and quality of life in adults with MS. A range of telerehabilitation interventions might be an alternative method of delivering services in MS populations. There is insufficient evidence to support on what types of telerehabilitation interventions are effective, and in which setting. More robust trials are needed to build evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of these interventions.

Biologics, colchicine, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and interferon-alpha for Neuro-Behçet's Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Neuro-Behçet Syndrome (NBS) is a severe chronic inflammatory vascular disease involving the Central Nervous System (CNS), and it is an invalidating condition with disability and a huge impact on quality of life. Recommendations on treatments for NBS include the use of disease-modifying therapies in general, although they are not supported by a systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harms of available treatments for NBS, including biologics, colchicine, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and interferon-alpha.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 30 September 2014: Trials Specialised Register of The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, ORPHANET, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective controlled cohort studies were eligible to assess the benefit. Patients over 13 years of age with a diagnosis of NBS. For assessment of harms, open-label extension (OLE), case-control studies, population-based registries, case-series and case-reports were additionally planned to be evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were planned to be carried out independently by two review authors. Standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration were followed. We planned to perform standard pair-wise meta-analyses for RCTs, and meta-analyses based on the adjusted estimates using the inverse-variance weighted average method for non-randomised studies (NRSs). We planned to present the main results of the review in a 'Summary of Findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs, CCTs or controlled cohort studies on the benefit of the treatments for NBS met the inclusion criteria of the review. Only one potentially eligible study was identified, but it did not report sufficient details on the patient characteristics. The author of this study did not provide additional data on request, and therefore it was excluded. Hence, no studies were included in the present review. Since no studies were included in the assessment of benefit, no further search was performed in order to collect data on harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the benefit of biologics, colchicine, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and interferon-alpha for the treatment of patients with NBS. Thus, well-designed multicentre RCTs are needed in order to inform and guide clinical practice.

Neuropsychological rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Neuropsychological rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis' (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11).Cognitive deficits are a common manifestation of multiple sclerosis (MS) and have a significant effect on the patient's quality of life. Alleviation of the harmful effects caused by these deficits should be a major goal of MS research and practice. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of neuropsychological/cognitive rehabilitation on health-related factors, such as cognitive performance and emotional well-being in patients with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register which, among other sources, contains trials from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro and clinical trials registries (28 May 2013). We contacted authors of the studies for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of neuropsychological rehabilitation in MS compared to other interventions or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors individually judged the eligibility of the included studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We combined results quantitatively in meta-analyses according to the intervention type: 1) cognitive training and 2) cognitive training combined with other neuropsychological rehabilitation methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies (986 participants; 966 MS participants and 20 healthy controls) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the participants was 44.6 years, mean length of education was 12.3 years and 70% of the participants were women. Most of the participants had a relapsing-remitting course of disease. The mean Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 3.2 and the mean duration of disease was 14.0 years.On the basis of these studies, we found low-level evidence that neuropsychological rehabilitation reduces cognitive symptoms in MS. Cognitive training was found to improve memory span (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.88, P = 0.002) and working memory (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.57, P = 0.006). Cognitive training combined with other neuropsychological rehabilitation methods was found to improve attention (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28, P = 0.03), immediate verbal memory (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.54, P = 0.008) and delayed memory (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.42, P = 0.03). There was no evidence of an effect of neuropsychological rehabilitation on emotional functions.The overall quality, as well as the comparability of the included studies, was relatively low due to methodological limitations and heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures. Although most of the pooled results in the meta-analyses yielded no significant findings, 18 of the 20 studies showed some evidence of positive effects when the studies were individually analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found low-level evidence for positive effects of neuropsychological rehabilitation in MS. The interventions and outcome measures included in the review were heterogeneous, which limited the comparability of the studies. New trials may therefore change the strength and direction of the evidence.

Mycophenolate mofetil for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system and a leading cause of disability in young and middle-aged adults. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressive agent that has been used for the prevention of allograft rejection after renal, cardiac, or liver transplant and in patients with autoimmune diseases such as active relapsing-remitting (RRMS) and progressive MS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of MMF for preventing disease activity in patients with RRMS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (January 14, 2013). We searched three Chinese databases (January 2013) and checked reference lists of identified trials. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to ask for additional information. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of at least 12 months that compared MMF as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments versus placebo, another drug, or the same cointervention as the treated group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

One included study involving 26 participants with new-onset RRMS investigated the efficacy and safety of MMF (13 participants) versus placebo in interferon β-1a-treated participants. It was assessed to be at high risk of bias, and had a small numbers of participants receiving treatment with short-term duration. There was inadequate information provided by the study to determine the effect of MMF in reducing relapses, preventing disability progression, or developing new T2- or new gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after a 12-month follow-up period. No data were available at 24 months. No serious adverse effects were reported. All participants in the MMF-treated group suffered from gastrointestinal upset, but none of them discontinued therapy as a result.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence we found from one small study was insufficient to determine the effects of MMF as an add-on therapy for interferon β-1a in new-onset RRMS participants.

Statins for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the human central nervous system. Statins, prescribed as cholesterol lowering agents, have shown possible effects for treating MS in experimental and preliminary clinical studies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins administered alone or as add-on to approved treatments for MS.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Coordinator searched the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (1 August 2011). We searched the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 1 August 2011), trials registers and conference proceedings. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies were contacted for additional information.There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing statins with placebo, or comparing statins in combination with approved treatments alone for patients with MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials involving 458 participants were included. All trials compared statins (two evaluating atorvastatin and two simvastatin) plus interferon beta-1a with interferon beta-1a alone for treating MS. The methodological quality was good for three studies and poor for remaining one. None of them showed statistically significant difference between both treatment groups in reducing relapses, preventing disease progression or developing new T2 or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on MRI after 9, 12, 24 months follow up period. Statins resulted to be safe and well tolerated, no serious adverse effects were reported. Changes on quality of life after receiving statins were not reported in the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no convincing evidence to support the use of either atorvastatin or simvastatin as an adjunctive therapy in MS.

Treatment of seizures in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Epileptic seizures occur in only a minority of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but can have serious consequences. The available literature suggests an association of seizures in MS with cortical and subcortical demyelinating lesions, which suggest that seizures in MS are probably most often symptomatic rather that idiopathic. It is currently unknown whether patients with MS should be treated differently from other patients with epileptic seizures.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic treatments in patients with MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for double-blind, single-blind or unblinded randomised controlled trials on antiepileptic treatment in patients with MS through electronic searches of The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group's and Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Trials Registers, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (From 1966 - Jan 2008) and EMBASE (From 1974 - Jan 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, single-blind or unblinded randomised controlled trials on antiepileptic treatment in patients with MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Searches yielded a total of 379 citations (CENTRAL: 20, MEDLINE: 264, EMBASE: 95). We perused titles and abstracts for relevance and independently excluded all 379 citations as clearly not meeting the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies meeting our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to guide clinical practice. Such trials should preferably contain a head-to-head comparison of antiepileptic drugs in patients with MS.

Exercise therapy for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

No intervention has proven effective in modifying long-term disease prognosis in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) but exercise therapy is considered to be an important part of symptomatic and supportive treatment for these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of exercise therapy for patients with MS in terms of activities of daily living and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane MS Group Specialised Register (searched: March 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (from 1966 to March 2004), EMBASE (from 1988 to March 2004 ), CINAHL (from 1982 to March 2004), PEDro (from 1999 to March 2004) . Manual search in the journal 'Multiple Sclerosis' and screening of the reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We also searched abstracts published in proceedings of conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that reported on exercise therapy for adults with MS, not presently experiencing an exacerbation; outcomes that include measures of activity limitation or health-related quality of life or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and methodological quality of the included trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. The results were analysed using a best-evidence synthesis based on methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine high-methodological-quality RCTs(260 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Six trials focussed on comparison of exercise therapy versus no exercise therapy, whereas three trials compared two interventions that both met our definition of exercise therapy. Best evidence synthesis showed strong evidence in favour of exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy in terms of muscle power function, exercise tolerance functions and mobility-related activities. Moderate evidence was found for improving mood. No evidence was observed for exercise therapy on fatigue and perception of handicap when compared to no exercise therapy. Finally, no evidence was found that specific exercise therapy programmes were more successful in improving activities and participation than other exercise treatments. No evidence of deleterious effects of exercise therapy was described in included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present review suggest that exercise therapy can be beneficial for patients with MS not experiencing an exacerbation. There is an urgent need for consensus on a core set of outcome measures to be used in exercise trials. In addition, these studies should experimentally control for 'dose' of treatment, type of MS and should include sufficient contrast between experimental and control groups.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, recurrent and progressive illness with no cure. On the basis of speculative pathophysiology, it has been suggested that Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) may slow or reverse the progress of the disease.

OBJECTIVES

The object of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HBOT in the treatment of MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane MS Group trials register (July 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2002) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) database (July 2002), along with specialised hyperbaric resources and handsearching of relevant journals and proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised, controlled trials involving a comparison between HBOT and a sham therapy in MS were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently appraised all comparative trials identified, extracted data and scored them for methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified ten reports of nine trials that satisfied selection criteria (504 participants in total). Two trials produced generally positive results, while the remaining seven reported generally no evidence of a treatment effect. None of our three a priori subgroup analyses placed these two trials in the same group and were therefore unable to account for this difference. Three analyses (of 21) did indicate some benefit. For example, the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) at 12 months was improved in the HBOT group (group mean reduction in EDSS compared to sham -0.85 of a point, 95% confidence interval -1.28 to -0.42, P = 0.0001). Only the two generally positive trials reported on this outcome at this time (16% of the total participants in this review).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We found no consistent evidence to confirm a beneficial effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and do not believe routine use is justified. The small number of analyses suggestive of benefit are isolated, difficult to ascribe with biological plausibility and would need to be confirmed in future well-designed trials. Such trials are not, in our view, justified by this review.

Methotrexate for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is a potent immunosuppressant which in theory could reduce relapse rates and delay disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). Subsequently, clinical trials of methotrexate have been conducted in people with MS.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and summarise the evidence that methotrexate is beneficial and safe for people with MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane MS Group trials register (searched December 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (Pub Med) (January 1966 to June 2001), EMBASE (January 1988 to June 2001), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of methotrexate for the prevention of relapses and disease progression in MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers (OG, GM, ) independently selected articles for inclusion, assessed the trials' quality and extracted the data. Authors of one trial were contacted to obtaining missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial involving 60 participants with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis was included. The trial showed a non-significant reduction in sustained EDSS progression and number of relapses in favour of methotrexate therapy. There was no difference in time to first relapse and no data on relapse rate. Minor side-effects were reported frequently in both methotrexate (87.1%) and placebo groups (89.7%), but there were no major side-effects.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

In progressive MS, the single included trial reveals a non-significant trend in reduction of sustained EDSS progression and number of relapses in favour of methotrexate. A trial of methotrexate in relapsing remitting MS showed non-significant trends in favour of methotrexate but was excluded on methodological grounds. Before drawing further conclusions regarding the efficacy of methotrexate in MS, further trials are required.

Intravenous immunoglobulins for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

From animal experiments, there is evidence to suggest that intravenous immunoglobulins can reverse some of the disease process of central nervous system demyelination. Subsequently, clinical trials of intravenous immunoglobulins have been conducted in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

OBJECTIVES

To identify and summarise the evidence that intravenous immunoglobulins are safe and beneficial for people with MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group trials Register( January 2003) The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2001), EMBASE (January 1988 to April 2001) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of intravenous immunoglobulins for the secondary prevention of relapses and disease progression in MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

913 titles and abstracts were obtained from the literature search, and we eventually identified 10 clinical trials. All reviewers agreed on the final dataset for entry into RevMan 4.1, and summarised the results. Study authors were contacted for additional information but no response was obtained.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 913 potential studies, 10 trials were identified with a total of 918 participants, four of which are in progress or awaiting publication. The remaining six trials were suitable for consideration by this review (344 participants). Only two trials met our protocol's inclusion criteria. The four remaining trials were excluded as they did not use outcome measures specified in our review (2 trials, 122 participants), or were of insufficient methodological quality (2 trials, 34 participants). From the two included trials (168 participants) there was a reduction in relapse rate and increased time to first relapse during treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins, but reliable disease progression outcomes were not reported, nor were magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data available to support clinical information. There may be as many as 574 participants in ongoing or yet to be published trials.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to support use of intravenous immunoglobulins as a preventative treatment for relapses in relapsing remitting MS, but further studies should be performed using MRI and disease progression endpoints. It may be possible to draw more robust conclusions when ongoing or recently completed trials make their data available for review. Two rigorously conducted trials with a total of 122 participants did not demonstrate a positive clinical benefit, but were excluded from this review as they employed outcome measures not specified in our protocol. Immunoglobulins were well tolerated with a less than 5% risk of adverse events in participants in included trials.

Occupational therapy for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are referred to occupational therapy with complaints about fatigue, limb weakness, alteration of upper extremity fine motor coordination, loss of sensation and spasticity that causes limitations in performance of activities of daily living and social participation. The primary purpose of occupational therapy is to enable individuals to participate in self-care, work and leisure activities that they want or need to perform.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether occupational therapy interventions in MS patients improve outcome on functional ability, social participation and/or health related quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant full length articles were identified by electronical searches in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Amed, Scisearch and The Cochrane MS Group Trials Register. The reference list of identified studies and reviews were examined for additional references. Date of last search: December 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled (randomized and non-randomized) and other than controlled studies addressing occupational therapy for MS patients were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodological quality of the included trials was independently assessed by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A list proposed by Van Tulder et al. (Van Tulder 1997) was used to assess the methodological quality. For outcome measures, standardized mean differences were calculated. The results were analysed using a best-evidence synthesis based on type of design, methodological quality and the significant findings of outcome and/or process measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one randomized clinical trial was identified. Two other included studies were a controlled clinical trial and a study with a pre-post test design. The studies included 271 patients in total. Two studies evaluated an energy-conservation course for groups of patients and one study evaluated a counselling intervention. The results of the energy conservation studies could be biased because of the designs used, the poor methodological quality and the small number of included patients. The high quality RCT on counselling reported non-significant results.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

On basis of this review no conclusions can be stated whether occupational therapy improves outcome in MS patients. The lack of (randomized controlled) efficacy studies in most intervention categories of OT shows an urgent need for future research in occupational therapy for multiple sclerosis. Initially, a survey of occupational therapy practice for MS patients including the characteristics and needs of these patients is necessary to develop a research agenda for efficacy studies.