Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies for idiopathic inflammatory myopathies

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

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

Pharmacological treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Drug treatment for spinal muscular atrophy types II and III

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Drug treatment for spinal muscular atrophy type I

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Strength training and aerobic exercise training for muscle disease

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Assisted standing for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Interventions for idiopathic toe walking

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Respiratory muscle training in children and adults with neuromuscular disease

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Physical exercise training for type 3 spinal muscular atrophy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Acupuncture for symptomatic gastroparesis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment of fatigue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Mechanical ventilation for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Immunotherapy for diabetic amyotrophy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review of tramadol for neuropathic pain, published in 2006; updating was to bring the review in line with current standards. Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Peripheral neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the peripheral nervous system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of tramadol compared with placebo or other active interventions for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing tramadol (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 438 participants with suitably characterised neuropathic pain. In each, tramadol was started at a dose of about 100 mg daily and increased over one to two weeks to a maximum of 400 mg daily or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months due to cancer, cancer treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury, or polyneuropathy. The mean age was 50 to 67 years with approximately equal numbers of men and women. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes. Study duration for treatments was four to six weeks, and two studies had a cross-over design.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest, and there were limited data for pain outcomes. At least 50% pain intensity reduction was reported in three studies (265 participants, 110 events). Using a random-effects analysis, 70/132 (53%) had at least 50% pain relief with tramadol, and 40/133 (30%) with placebo; the risk ratio (RR) was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.6). The NNT calculated from these data was 4.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.8). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low quality because of the small size of studies and of the pooled data set, because there were only 110 actual events, the analysis included different types of neuropathic pain, the studies all had at least one high risk of potential bias, and because of the limited duration of the studies.Participants experienced more adverse events with tramadol than placebo. Report of any adverse event was higher with tramadol (58%) than placebo (34%) (4 studies, 266 participants, 123 events; RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1); NNH 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 8.3)). Adverse event withdrawal was higher with tramadol (16%) than placebo (3%) (6 studies, 485 participants, 45 events; RR 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.4); NNH 8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 14)). Only four serious adverse events were reported, without obvious attribution to treatment, and no deaths were reported. We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two or three levels to low or very low quality because of small study size, because there were few actual events, and because of the limited duration of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only modest information about the use of tramadol in neuropathic pain, coming from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally increase the apparent benefits of tramadol. The evidence of benefit from tramadol was of low or very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood is very high that the effect will be substantially different from the estimate in this systematic review.

Immunomodulatory treatment other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a disease that causes progressive or relapsing and remitting weakness and numbness. It is probably caused by an autoimmune process. Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs would be expected to be beneficial. This review was first published in 2003 and has been updated most recently in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and plasma exchange in CIDP.

SEARCH METHODS

On 24 May 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS for completed trials, and clinical trial registers for ongoing trials. We contacted the authors of the trials identified and other disease experts seeking other published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised and quasi-randomised trials of all immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab, and all immunomodulatory agents, such as interferon (IFN) alfa and IFN beta, in participants fulfilling standard diagnostic criteria for CIDP. We included all comparisons of these agents with placebo, another treatment, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We wanted to measure the change in disability after one year as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcomes were change in disability after four or more weeks (from randomisation); change in impairment after at least one year; change in maximum motor nerve conduction velocity and compound muscle action potential amplitude after one year; and for participants who were receiving corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), the amount of this medication given during at least one year after randomisation. Participants with one or more serious adverse events during the first year was also a secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials fulfilled the selection criteria: one of azathioprine (27 participants), two of IFN beta-1a (77 participants in total) and one of methotrexate (60 participants). The risk of bias was considered low in the trials of IFN beta-1a and methotrexate but high in the trial of azathioprine. None of the trials showed significant benefit in any of the outcomes selected by their authors. The results of the outcomes which approximated most closely to the primary outcome for this review were as follows.In the azathioprine trial there was a median improvement in the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (scale range 0 to 280) after nine months of 29 points (range 49 points worse to 84 points better) in the azathioprine and prednisone treated participants compared with 30 points worse (range 20 points worse to 104 points better) in the prednisone alone group. There were no reports of adverse events.In a cross-over trial of IFN beta-1a with 20 participants, the treatment periods were 12 weeks. The median improvement in the Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (range 1 to 10) was 0.5 grades (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8 grades better to zero grade change) in the IFN beta-1a treatment period and 0.5 grades (IQR 1.8 grades better to 1.0 grade worse) in the placebo treatment period. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment period.In a parallel group trial of IFN beta-1a with 67 participants, none of the outcomes for this review was available. The trial design involved withdrawal from ongoing IVIg treatment. The primary outcome used by the trial authors was total IVIg dose administered from week 16 to week 32 in the placebo group compared with the IFN beta-1a groups. This was slightly but not significantly lower in the combined IFN beta-1a groups (1.20 g/kg) compared with the placebo group (1.34 g/kg, P = 0.75). There were four participants in the IFN beta-1a group and none in the placebo group with one or more serious adverse events, risk ratio (RR) 4.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 80.05).The methotrexate trial had a similar design involving withdrawal from ongoing corticosteroid or IVIg treatment. At the end of the trial (approximately 40 weeks) there was no significant difference in the change in the Overall Neuropathy Limitations Scale, a disability scale (scale range 0 to 12), the median change being 0 (IQR -1 to 0) in the methotrexate group and 0 (IQR -0.75 to 0) in the placebo group. These changes in disability might have been confounded by the reduction in corticosteroid or IVIg dose required by the protocol. There were three participants in the methotrexate group and one in the placebo with one or more serious adverse events, RR 3.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 32.23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence from randomised trials does not show significant benefit from azathioprine or interferon beta-1a and moderate-quality evidence from one randomised trial does not show significant benefit from a relatively low dose of methotrexate for the treatment of CIDP. None of the trials was large enough to rule out small or moderate benefit. The evidence from observational studies is insufficient to avoid the need for randomised controlled trials to discover whether these drugs are beneficial. Future trials should have improved designs, more sensitive outcome measures relevant to people with CIDP, and longer treatment durations.

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 January 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment, or comparing different regimens or techniques of plasma exchange.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Two other studies compared different numbers of plasma exchanges. Overall the included trials had a moderate risk of bias (in general, the studies were at low risk but all had a high risk of bias from lack of blinding).In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (30 days) than without plasma exchange (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without plasma exchange (10 days). After four weeks, moderate-quality evidence from the combined data of three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchange significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).In five trials with 623 participants in total, moderate-quality evidence showed that the RR for improvement by one or more disability grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) times greater with plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared better, according to moderate-quality evidence, in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.79) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). More participants had relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange group than in the control group (six trials with 649 participants; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.93; moderate-quality evidence). Despite this, according to moderate-quality evidence, the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery at one year was greater with plasma exchange than without plasma exchange (five trials with 404 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45), and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was less (six trials with 649 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96). High-quality evidence from six trials with 649 participants could not confirm or refute a lower risk of death following plasma exchange compared to control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.65).Three trials (N = 556) provided details of serious adverse events during the hospital stay; combined analyses found no increase in serious infectious events compared to the control group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.13), nor were there clear differences in blood pressure instability, cardiac arrhythmias or pulmonary emboli.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome, without a significant increase in serious adverse events. According to moderate-quality evidence, there was a small but significant increase in the risk of relapse during the first six to 12 months after onset in people treated with plasma exchange compared with those who were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery of muscle strength was more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.

Interventions to prevent and treat corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis and prevent osteoporotic fractures in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid treatment is considered the 'gold standard' for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD); however, it is also known to induce osteoporosis and thus increase the risk of vertebral fragility fractures. Good practice in the care of those with DMD requires prevention of these adverse effects. Treatments to increase bone mineral density include bisphosphonates and vitamin D and calcium supplements, and in adolescents with pubertal delay, testosterone. Bone health management is an important part of lifelong care for patients with DMD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions to prevent or treat osteoporosis in children and adults with DMD taking long-term corticosteroids; to assess the effects of these interventions on the frequency of vertebral fragility fractures and long-bone fractures, and on quality of life; and to assess adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

On 12 September 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus to identify potentially eligible trials. We also searched the Web of Science ISI Proceedings (2001 to September 2016) and three clinical trials registries to identify unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We contacted correspondence authors of the included studies in the review to obtain information on unpublished studies or work in progress.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving any bone health intervention for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis and fragility fractures in children, adolescents, and adults with a confirmed diagnosis of DMD. The interventions might have included oral and intravenous bisphosphonates, vitamin D supplements, calcium supplements, dietary calcium, testosterone, and weight-bearing activity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed reports and selected potential studies for inclusion, following standard Cochrane methodology. We contacted study authors to obtain further information for clarification on published work, unpublished studies, and work in progress.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 potential studies, of which two, currently reported only as abstracts, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Too little information was available for us to present full results or adequately assess risk of bias. The participants were children aged five to 15 years with DMD, ambulant and non-ambulant. The interventions were risedronate versus no treatment in one trial (13 participants) and whole-body vibration versus a placebo device in the second (21 participants). Both studies reported improved bone mineral density with the active treatments, with no improvement in the control groups, but the abstracts did not compare treatment and control conditions. All children tolerated whole-body vibration treatment. No study provided information on adverse events. Two studies are ongoing: one investigating whole-body vibration, the other investigating zoledronic acid.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We know of no high-quality evidence from RCTs to guide use of treatments to prevent or treat corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis and reduce the risk of fragility fractures in children and adults with DMD; only limited results from two trials reported in abstracts were available. We await formal trial reports. Findings from two ongoing relevant studies and two trials, for which only abstracts are available, will be important in future updates of this review.

Treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP): an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.

METHODS

We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.

MAIN RESULTS

Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.

Symptomatic treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

Motor neuron disease (MND), which is also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), causes a wide range of symptoms but the evidence base for the effectiveness of the symptomatic treatment therapies is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews of all symptomatic treatments for MND.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on 15 November 2016 for systematic reviews of symptomatic treatments for MND. We assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the GRADE approach. We followed standard Cochrane study (review) selection and data extraction procedures. We reported findings narratively and in tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine Cochrane Systematic Reviews of interventions to treat symptoms in people with MND. Three were empty reviews with no included randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, all three reported on non-RCT evidence and the remaining six included mostly one or two studies. We deemed all of the included reviews of high methodological quality. Drug therapy for painThere is no RCT evidence in a Cochrane Systematic Review exploring the efficacy of drug therapy for pain in MND. Treatment for crampsThere is evidence (13 RCTs, N = 4012) that for the treatment of cramps in MND, compared to placebo:- memantine and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are probably ineffective (moderate-quality evidence);- vitamin E may have little or no effect (low-quality evidence); and- the effects of L-threonine, gabapentin, xaliproden, riluzole, and baclofen are uncertain as the evidence is either very low quality or the trial specified the outcome but did not report numerical data.The review reported adverse effects of riluzole, but it is not clear whether other interventions had adverse effects. Treatment for spasticityIt is uncertain whether an endurance-based exercise programme improved spasticity or quality of life, measured at three months after the programme, as the quality of evidence is very low (1 RCT, comparison "usual activities", N = 25). The review did not evaluate other approaches, such as use of baclofen as no RCTs were available. Mechanical ventilation for supporting respiratory functionNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) probably improves median survival and quality of life in people with respiratory insufficiency and normal to moderately impaired bulbar function compared to standard care, and improves quality of life but not survival for people with poor bulbar function (1 RCT, N = 41, moderate-quality evidence; a second RCT did not provide data). The review did not evaluate other approaches such as tracheostomy-assisted ('invasive') ventilation, or assess timing of NIV initiation. Treatment for sialorrhoeaA single session of botulinum toxin type B injections to parotid and submandibular glands probably improves sialorrhoea and quality of life at up to 4 weeks compared to placebo injections, but not at 8 or 12 weeks after the injections (moderate-quality evidence from 1 placebo-controlled RCT, N = 20). The review authors found no trials of other approaches. Enteral tube feeding for supporting nutritionThere is no RCT evidence in a Cochrane Systematic Review to support benefit or harms of enteral tube feeding in supporting nutrition in MND. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationIt is uncertain whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves disability or limitation in activity in MND in comparison with sham rTMS (3 RCTs, very low quality evidence, N = 50). Therapeutic exerciseThere is evidence that exercise may improve disability in MND at three months after the exercise programme, but not quality of life, in comparison with "usual activities" or "usual care" including stretching (2 RCTs, low-quality evidence, N = 43). Multidisciplinary careThere is no RCT evidence in a Cochrane Systematic Review to demonstrate any benefit or harm for multidisciplinary care in MND.None of the reviews, other than the review of treatment for cramps, reported that adverse events occurred. However, the trials were too small for reliable adverse event reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview has highlighted the lack of robust evidence in Cochrane Systematic Reviews on interventions to manage symptoms resulting from MND. It is important to recognise that clinical trials may fail to demonstrate efficacy of an intervention for reasons other than a true lack of efficacy, for example because of insufficient statistical power, the wrong choice of dose, insensitive outcome measures or inappropriate participant eligibility. The trials were mostly too small to reliably assess adverse effects of the treatments. The nature of MND makes it difficult to research clinically accepted or recommended practice, regardless of the level of evidence supporting the practice. It would not be ethical, for example, to design a placebo-controlled trial for treatment of pain in MND or to withhold multidisciplinary care where such care is available. It is therefore highly unlikely that there will ever be classically designed placebo-controlled RCTs in these areas.We need more research with appropriate study designs, robust methodology, and of sufficient duration to address the changing needs-of people with MND and their caregivers-associated with MND disease progression and mortality. There is a significant gap in studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for symptoms relating to MND, such as pseudobulbar emotional lability and cognitive and behavioural difficulties. Future studies should use appropriate outcome measures that are reliable, have internal and external validity, and are sensitive to change in what is being measured (such as quality of life).

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) modulators for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

BACKGROUND

Imbalance of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and related modulators has been implicated as an important factor in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND). In this context, the role and mechanism of action of gabapentin and baclofen have been extensively investigated, although with conflicting results. This is the first systematic review to assess clinical trials of GABA modulators for the treatment of ALS.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of gabapentin, baclofen, or other GABA modulators in delaying the progression of ALS, and to evaluate adverse effects of these interventions

SEARCH METHODS

On 16 August 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, AMED, and LILACS. In addition, we checked the bibliographies of the trials found in order to identify any other trials, and contacted trial authors to identify relevant unpublished results or additional clinical trials. On 30 August 2016, we searched two clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTsTypes of participants: adults with a diagnosis of probable or definite ALSTypes of interventions: gabapentin, baclofen, or other GABA modulators compared with placebo, no treatment, or each otherPrimary outcome: survival at one year from study enrollmentSecondary outcomes: individual rate of decline of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), expressed as arm megascore; rate of decline of per cent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC); rate of decline of ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS); health-related quality of life; survival evaluated by pooling hazards; and adverse events DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently checked titles and abstracts identified by the searches. The review authors obtained and independently analyzed original individual participant data from each included study; additional review authors and the Cochrane Neuromuscular Managing Editor checked the outcome data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies.

Data collection and analysis

At least two review authors independently checked titles and abstracts identified by the searches. The review authors obtained and independently analyzed original individual participant data from each included study; additional review authors and the Cochrane Neuromuscular Managing Editor checked the outcome data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two double-blind RCTs of gabapentin treatment in ALS for inclusion in this review. We found no eligible RCTs of baclofen or other GABA modulators. The selected studies were phase II and phase III trials, which lasted six and nine months, respectively. They were highly comparable because both were comparisons of oral gabapentin and placebo, performed by the same investigators. The trials enrolled 355 participants with ALS: 80 in the gabapentin group and 72 in the placebo group in the first (phase II) trial and 101 in the gabapentin group and 102 in the placebo group in the second (phase III) trial. Neither trial was long enough to report survival at one year, which was our primary outcome. We found little or no difference in estimated one-year survival between the treated group and the placebo group (78% versus 77%, P = 0.63 by log-rank test; high-quality evidence). We also found little or no difference in the rate of decline of MVIC expressed as arm megascore, or rate of FVC decline (high-quality evidence). One trial investigated monthly decline in the ALSFRS and quality of life measured using the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) and found little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality evidence). The trials reported similar adverse events. Complaints that were clearly elevated in those taking gabapentin, based on analyses of the combined data, were light-headedness, drowsiness, and limb swelling (high-quality evidence). Fatigue and falls occurred more frequently with gabapentin than with placebo in one trial, but when we combined the data for fatigue from both trials, there was no clear difference between the groups. We assessed the overall risk of bias in the included trials as low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to high-quality evidence, gabapentin is not effective in treating ALS. It does not extend survival, slow the rate of decline of muscle strength, respiratory function and, based on moderate-quality evidence, probably does not improve quality of life or slow monthly decline in the ALSFRS. Other GABA modulators have not been studied in randomized trials.

Antibiotics for the neurological complications of Lyme disease

BACKGROUND

Various central nervous system-penetrant antibiotics are bactericidal in vitro and in vivo against the causative agent of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB), Borrelia burgdorferi. These antibiotics are routinely used clinically to treat LNB, but their relative efficacy is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotics for the treatment of LNB.

SEARCH METHODS

On 25 October 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched clinical trial registers on 26 October 2016. We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomized trials identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data. There were no language restrictions when searching for studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials of antibiotic treatment of LNB in adults and children that compared any antibiotic treatment, including combinations of treatments, versus any other treatment, placebo, or no treatment. We excluded studies of entities considered as post-Lyme syndrome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven randomized studies involving 450 European participants with LNB for inclusion in this systematic review. We found no trials conducted in the United States. Marked heterogeneity among these studies prevented meta-analysis. None of the studies included a placebo control on the initial antibiotic treatment, and only one was blinded. None were delayed-start studies. All were active comparator studies, and most were not adequately powered for non-inferiority comparison. The trials investigated four antibiotics: penicillin G and ceftriaxone in four studies, doxycycline in three studies, and cefotaxime in two studies. One study tested a three-month course of oral amoxicillin versus placebo following initial treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone. One study was limited to children. The trials measured efficacy using heterogeneous physician- or patient-reported outcomes, or both. In some cases cerebrospinal fluid analysis was included as an indirect biomarker of disease and outcome. None of the studies reported on our proposed primary outcome, 'Improvement in a measure of overall disability in the long term (three or more months).' None of the trials revealed any between-group differences in symptom resolution in response to active treatment. In general, treatment was tolerated well. The quality of adverse event reporting, however, was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is mostly low- to very low-quality clinical evidence from a limited number of mostly small, heterogeneous trials with diverse outcome measures, comparing the relative efficacy of central nervous system-penetrant antibiotics for the treatment of LNB. The few existing randomized studies have limited power and lack consistent and well-defined entry criteria and efficacy endpoints. It is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the relative efficacy of accepted antibiotic drug regimens for the treatment of LNB. The majority of people are reported to have good outcomes, and symptoms resolve by 12 months regardless of the antibiotic used. A minority of participants did not improve sufficiently, and some were retreated. These randomized studies provide some evidence that doxycycline, penicillin G, ceftriaxone, and cefotaxime are efficacious in the treatment of European LNB. No evidence of additional efficacy was observed when, in one study, an initial antibiotic treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone was followed by additional longer treatment with oral amoxicillin. There is a lack of evidence identified through our high-quality search strategy on the efficacy of antibiotics for treatment of LNB in the United States.

Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow

BACKGROUND

Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is the second most common entrapment neuropathy after carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatment may be conservative or surgical, but optimal management remains controversial. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of conservative and surgical treatment in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). We intended to test whether:- surgical treatment is effective in reducing symptoms and signs and in increasing nerve function;- conservative treatment is effective in reducing symptoms and signs and in increasing nerve function;- it is possible to identify the best treatment on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, or nerve imaging assessment.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 May 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also searched PEDro (14 October 2016), and the papers cited in relevant reviews. On 4 July 2016 we searched trials registries for ongoing or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review included only randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating people with clinical symptoms suggesting the presence of UNE. We included trials evaluating all forms of surgical and conservative treatments. We considered studies regarding therapy of UNE with or without neurophysiological evidence of entrapment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts of references retrieved from the searches and selected all potentially relevant studies. The review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed trial quality. We contacted trial investigators for any missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs (587 participants) for inclusion in the review, of which three studies were found at this update. The sequence generation was inadequate in one study and not described in three studies. We performed two meta-analyses to evaluate the clinical (3 trials, 261 participants) and neurophysiological (2 trials, 101 participants) outcomes of simple decompression versus decompression with submuscular or subcutaneous transposition; four trials in total examined this comparison.We found no difference between simple decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve for both clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08; moderate-quality evidence) and neurophysiological improvement (mean difference (in m/s) 1.47, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.87). The number of participants to clinically improve was 91 out of 131 in the simple decompression group and 97 out of 130 in the transposition group. Transposition showed a higher number of wound infections (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; moderate-quality evidence).In one trial (47 participants), the authors compared medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition and found no difference in clinical and neurophysiological outcomes.In one trial (48 participants), the investigators compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition and found no difference in clinical outcomes.In one trial (54 participants for 56 nerves treated), the authors found no difference between endoscopic and open decompression in improving clinical function.One trial (51 participants) assessed conservative treatment in clinically mild or moderate UNE. Based on low-quality evidence, the trial authors found that information on avoiding prolonged movements or positions was effective in improving subjective discomfort. Night splinting and nerve gliding exercises in addition to information provision did not result in further improvement.One trial (55 participants) assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection and found no difference versus placebo in improving symptoms at three months' follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only two studies of treatment of ulnar neuropathy using conservative treatment as the comparator. The available comparative treatment evidence is not sufficient to support a multiple treatment meta-analysis to identify the best treatment for idiopathic UNE on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a person with this condition conservatively or surgically. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic UNE, including when the nerve impairment is severe. Decompression with transposition is associated with more deep and superficial wound infections than simple decompression, also based on moderate-quality evidence. People undergoing endoscopic surgery were more likely to have a haematoma. Evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that in mild cases, information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort.

Corticosteroids for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.

Immunotherapy for IgM anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein paraprotein-associated peripheral neuropathies

BACKGROUND

Serum monoclonal anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein (anti-MAG) antibodies may be pathogenic in some people with immunoglobulin M (IgM) paraprotein and demyelinating neuropathy. Immunotherapies aimed at reducing the level of these antibodies might be expected to be beneficial. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and previously updated in 2006 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunotherapy for IgM anti-MAG paraprotein-associated demyelinating peripheral neuropathy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 1 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also checked trials registers and bibliographies, and contacted authors and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs involving participants of any age treated with any type of immunotherapy for anti-MAG antibody-associated demyelinating peripheral neuropathy with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and of any severity.Our primary outcome measures were numbers of participants improved in disability assessed with either or both of the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (NIS) or the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at six months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were: mean improvement in disability, assessed with either the NIS or the mRS, 12 months after randomisation; change in impairment as measured by improvement in the 10-metre walk time, change in a validated linear disability measure such as the Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (R-ODS) at six and 12 months after randomisation, change in subjective clinical scores and electrophysiological parameters at six and 12 months after randomisation; change in serum IgM paraprotein concentration or anti-MAG antibody titre at six months after randomisation; and adverse effects of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight eligible trials (236 participants), which tested intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), interferon alfa-2a, plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide and steroids, and rituximab. Two trials of IVIg (22 and 11 participants, including 20 with antibodies against MAG), had comparable interventions and outcomes, but both were short-term trials. We also included two trials of rituximab with comparable interventions and outcomes.There were very few clinical or statistically significant benefits of the treatments used on the outcomes predefined for this review, but not all the predefined outcomes were used in every included trial and more responsive outcomes are being developed. A well-performed trial of IVIg, which was at low risk of bias, showed a statistical benefit in terms of improvement in mRS at two weeks and 10-metre walk time at four weeks, but these short-term outcomes are of questionable clinical significance. Cyclophosphamide failed to show any benefit in the single trial's primary outcome, and showed a barely significant benefit in the primary outcome specified here, but some toxic adverse events were identified.Two trials of rituximab (80 participants) have been published, one of which (26 participants) was at high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, although the data are of low quality, rituximab is beneficial in improving disability scales (Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) improved at eight to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 3.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 9.45; 73 participants)) and significantly more participants improve in the global impression of change score (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.71; 70 participants). Other measures did not improve significantly, but wide CIs do not preclude some effect. Reported adverse effects of rituximab were few, and mostly minor.There were few serious adverse events in the other trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inadequate reliable evidence from trials of immunotherapies in anti-MAG paraproteinaemic neuropathy to form an evidence base supporting any particular immunotherapy treatment. IVIg has a statistically but probably not clinically significant benefit in the short term. The meta-analysis of two trials of rituximab provides, however, low-quality evidence of a benefit from this agent. The conclusions of this meta-analysis await confirmation, as one of the two included studies is of very low quality. We require large well-designed randomised trials of at least 12 months' duration to assess existing or novel therapies, preferably employing unified, consistent, well-designed, responsive, and valid outcome measures.

Pharmacological treatments for Friedreich ataxia

BACKGROUND

Friedreich ataxia is a rare inherited autosomal recessive neurological disorder, characterised initially by unsteadiness in standing and walking, slowly progressing to wheelchair dependency usually in the late teens or early twenties. It is associated with slurred speech, scoliosis, and pes cavus. Heart abnormalities cause premature death in 60% of people with the disorder. There is no easily defined clinical or biochemical marker and no known treatment. This is the second update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for Friedreich ataxia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 29 February 2016 we searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL Plus. On 7 March 2016 we searched ORPHANET and TRIP. We also checked clinical trials registers for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of pharmacological treatments (including vitamins) in people with genetically-confirmed Friedreich ataxia. The primary outcome was change in a validated Friedreich ataxia neurological score after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in cardiac status as measured by magnetic resonance imaging or echocardiography, quality of life, mild and serious adverse events, and survival. We excluded trials of duration shorter than 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors selected trials and two review authors extracted data. We obtained missing data from the two RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We collected adverse event data from included studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified more than 12 studies that used antioxidants in the treatment of Friedreich ataxia, but only two small RCTs, with a combined total of 72 participants, both fulfilled the selection criteria for this review and published results. One of these trials compared idebenone with placebo, the other compared high-dose versus low-dose coenzyme Q10 and vitamin E (the trialists considered the low-dose medication to be the placebo). We identified two other completed RCTs, which remain unpublished; the interventions in these trials were pioglitazone (40 participants) and idebenone (232 participants). Other RCTs were of insufficient duration for inclusion.In the included studies, the primary outcome specified for the review, change in a validated Friedreich ataxia rating score, was measured using the International Co-operative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS). The results did not reveal any significant difference between the antioxidant-treated and the placebo groups (mean difference 0.79 points, 95% confidence interval -1.97 to 3.55 points; low-quality evidence).The published included studies did not assess the first secondary outcome, change in cardiac status as measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Both studies reported changes in cardiac measurements assessed by echocardiogram. The ejection fraction was not measured in the larger of the included studies (44 participants). In the smaller study (28 participants), it was normal at baseline and did not change with treatment. End-diastolic interventricular septal thickness showed a small decrease in the smaller of the two included studies. In the larger included study, there was no decrease, showing significant heterogeneity in the study results; our overall assessment of the quality of evidence for this outcome was very low. Left ventricular mass (LVM) was only available for the smaller RCT, which showed a significant decrease. The relevance of this change is unclear and the quality of evidence low.There were no deaths related to the treatment with antioxidants. We considered the published included studies at low risk of bias in six of seven domains assessed. One unpublished included RCT, a year-long study using idebenone (232 participants), published an interim report in May 2010 stating that the study reached neither its primary endpoint, which was change in the ICARS score, nor a key cardiological secondary endpoint, but data were not available for verification and analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence from two small, published, randomised controlled trials neither support nor refute an effect from antioxidants (idebenone, or a combination of coenzyme Q10 and vitamin E) on the neurological status of people with Friedreich ataxia, measured with a validated neurological rating scale. A large unpublished study of idebenone that reportedly failed to meet neurological or key cardiological endpoints, and a trial of pioglitazone remain unpublished, but on publication will very likely influence quality assessments and conclusions. A single study of idebenone provided low-quality evidence for a decrease in LVM, which is of uncertain clinical significance but of potential importance that needs to be clarified. According to low-quality evidence, serious and non-serious adverse events were rare in both antioxidant and placebo groups. No non-antioxidant agents have been investigated in RCTs of 12 months' duration.

Corticosteroids for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis)

BACKGROUND

Inflammation and oedema of the facial nerve are implicated in causing Bell's palsy. Corticosteroids have a potent anti-inflammatory action that should minimise nerve damage. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid therapy in people with Bell's palsy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomised trials and contacted known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished trials. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing different routes of administration and dosage schemes of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone therapy versus a control group receiving no therapy considered effective for this condition, unless the same therapy was given in a similar way to the experimental group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. The main outcome of interest was incomplete recovery of facial motor function (i.e. residual facial weakness). Secondary outcomes were cosmetically disabling persistent sequelae, development of motor synkinesis or autonomic dysfunction (i.e. hemifacial spasm, crocodile tears) and adverse effects of corticosteroid therapy manifested during follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials, with 895 evaluable participants for this review. All provided data suitable for the primary outcome meta-analysis. One of the trials was new since the last version of this Cochrane systematic review. Risk of bias in the older, smaller studies included some unclear- or high-risk assessments, whereas we deemed the larger studies at low risk of bias. Overall, 79/452 (17%) participants allocated to corticosteroids had incomplete recovery of facial motor function six months or more after randomisation; significantly fewer than the 125/447 (28%) in the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.80, seven trials, n = 895). The number of people who need to be treated with corticosteroids to avoid one incomplete recovery was 10 (95% CI 6 to 20). The reduction in the proportion of participants with cosmetically disabling sequelae six months after randomisation was very similar in the corticosteroid and placebo groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.29, two trials, n = 75, low-quality evidence). However, there was a significant reduction in motor synkinesis during follow-up in participants receiving corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.91, three trials, n = 485, moderate-quality evidence). Three studies explicitly recorded the absence of adverse effects attributable to corticosteroids. One trial reported that three participants receiving prednisolone had temporary sleep disturbances and two trials gave a detailed account of adverse effects occurring in 93 participants, all non-serious; the combined analysis of data from these three trials found no significant difference in adverse effect rates between people receiving corticosteroids and people receiving placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, n = 715).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available moderate- to high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed significant benefit from treating Bell's palsy with corticosteroids.

Corticosteroids for treating nerve damage in leprosy

BACKGROUND

Leprosy causes nerve damage that can result in nerve function impairment and disability. Corticosteroids are commonly used for treating nerve damage, although their long-term effect is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2007, and previously updated in 2009 and 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nerve damage in leprosy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 16 June 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids for nerve damage in leprosy. The comparators were no treatment, placebo treatment, or a different corticosteroid regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was improvement in nerve function after one year. Secondary outcomes were change in nerve pain, limitations in activities of daily living, limitations in participation, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. When data were lacking, we contacted trial authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs involving 576 people. The trials were largely at low risk of bias, but we considered the quality of the evidence from these trials as moderate to low, largely due to imprecision from small sample sizes. Two out of the five trials reported on improvement in nerve function at one year. These two trials compared prednisolone with placebo. One trial, with 84 participants, treated mild sensory impairment of less than six months' duration, and the other, with 95 participants, treated nerve function impairment of 6 to 24 months' duration. There was no significant difference in nerve function improvement after 12 months between people treated with prednisolone and those treated with placebo. Adverse events were not reported significantly more often with corticosteroids than with placebo. The other three trials did not report on the primary outcome measure. One (334 participants) compared three corticosteroid regimens for severe type 1 reactions. No serious side effects of steroids were reported in any participant during the follow-up period. Another trial (21 participants) compared low-dose prednisone with high-dose prednisone for ulnar neuropathy. Two participants on the higher dose of prednisone reported adverse effects. The last (42 participants) compared intravenous methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone with intravenous normal saline and oral prednisolone. The trial found no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids are used for treating acute nerve damage in leprosy, but moderate-quality evidence from two RCTs treating either longstanding or mild nerve function impairment did not show corticosteroids to have a superior effect to placebo on nerve function improvement. A third trial showed significant benefit from a five-month steroid regimen over a three-month regimen in terms of response to treatment (need for additional corticosteroids). Further RCTs are needed to establish optimal corticosteroid regimens and to examine the efficacy and safety of adjuvant or new therapies for treating nerve damage in leprosy. Future trials should address non-clinical aspects, such as costs and impact on quality of life, which are highly relevant indicators for both policymakers and participants.

Corticosteroids for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common muscular dystrophy of childhood. Untreated, this incurable disease, which has an X-linked recessive inheritance, is characterised by muscle wasting and loss of walking ability, leading to complete wheelchair dependence by 13 years of age. Prolongation of walking is a major aim of treatment. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that corticosteroids significantly improve muscle strength and function in boys with DMD in the short term (six months), and strength at two years (two-year data on function are very limited). Corticosteroids, now part of care recommendations for DMD, are largely in routine use, although questions remain over their ability to prolong walking, when to start treatment, longer-term balance of benefits versus harms, and choice of corticosteroid or regimen.We have extended the scope of this updated review to include comparisons of different corticosteroids and dosing regimens.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking ability, muscle strength, functional ability, and quality of life in DMD; to address the question of whether benefit is maintained over the longer term (more than two years); to assess adverse events; and to compare efficacy and adverse effects of different corticosteroid preparations and regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

On 16 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We wrote to authors of published studies and other experts. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs or quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids (e.g. prednisone, prednisolone, and deflazacort) given for a minimum of three months to patients with a definite DMD diagnosis. We considered comparisons of different corticosteroids, regimens, and corticosteroids versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 studies (667 participants) and two new ongoing studies for inclusion. Six RCTs were newly included at this update and important non-randomised cohort studies have also been published. Some important studies remain unpublished and not all published studies provide complete outcome data.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

one two-year deflazacort RCT (n = 28) used prolongation of ambulation as an outcome measure but data were not adequate for drawing conclusions.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

meta-analyses showed that corticosteroids (0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone or prednisolone) improved muscle strength and function versus placebo over six months (moderate quality evidence from up to four RCTs). Evidence from single trials showed 0.75 mg/kg/day superior to 0.3 mg/kg/day on most strength and function measures, with little evidence of further benefit at 1.5 mg/kg/day. Improvements were seen in time taken to rise from the floor (Gowers' time), timed walk, four-stair climbing time, ability to lift weights, leg function grade, and forced vital capacity. One new RCT (n = 66), reported better strength, function and quality of life with daily 0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone at 12 months. One RCT (n = 28) showed that deflazacort stabilised muscle strength versus placebo at two years, but timed function test results were too imprecise for conclusions to be drawn.One double-blind RCT (n = 64), largely at low risk of bias, compared daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg/day) with weekend-only prednisone (5 mg/kg/weekend day), finding no overall difference in muscle strength and function over 12 months (moderate to low quality evidence). Two small RCTs (n = 52) compared daily prednisone 0.75 mg/kg/day with daily deflazacort 0.9 mg/kg/day, but study methods limited our ability to compare muscle strength or function.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

excessive weight gain, behavioural abnormalities, cushingoid appearance, and excessive hair growth were all previously shown to be more common with corticosteroids than placebo; we assessed the quality of evidence (for behavioural changes and weight gain) as moderate. Hair growth and cushingoid features were more frequent at 0.75 mg/kg/day than 0.3 mg/kg/day prednisone. Comparing daily versus weekend-only prednisone, both groups gained weight with no clear difference in body mass index (BMI) or in behavioural changes (low quality evidence for both outcomes, one study); the weekend-only group had a greater linear increase in height. Very low quality evidence suggested less weight gain with deflazacort than with prednisone at 12 months, and no difference in behavioural abnormalities. Data are insufficient to assess the risk of fractures or cataracts for any comparison.Non-randomised studies support RCT evidence in showing improved functional benefit from corticosteroids. These studies suggest sustained benefit for up to 66 months. Adverse effects were common, although generally manageable. According to a large comparative longitudinal study of daily or intermittent (10 days on, 10 days off) corticosteroid for a mean period of four years, a daily regimen prolongs ambulation and improves functional scores over the age of seven, but with a greater frequency of side effects than an intermittent regimen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence from RCTs indicates that corticosteroid therapy in DMD improves muscle strength and function in the short term (twelve months), and strength up to two years. On the basis of the evidence available for strength and function outcomes, our confidence in the effect estimate for the efficacy of a 0.75 mg/kg/day dose of prednisone or above is fairly secure. There is no evidence other than from non-randomised trials to establish the effect of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking. In the short term, adverse effects were significantly more common with corticosteroids than placebo, but not clinically severe. A weekend-only prednisone regimen is as effective as daily prednisone in the short term (12 months), according to low to moderate quality evidence from a single trial, with no clear difference in BMI (low quality evidence). Very low quality evidence indicates that deflazacort causes less weight gain than prednisone after a year's treatment. We cannot evaluate long-term benefits and hazards of corticosteroid treatment or intermittent regimens from published RCTs. Non-randomised studies support the conclusions of functional benefits, but also identify clinically significant adverse effects of long-term treatment, and a possible divergence of efficacy in daily and weekend-only regimens in the longer term. These benefits and adverse effects have implications for future research and clinical practice.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. This is the first update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions following CTS surgery compared with no treatment, placebo, or another intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

On 29 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, AMED, LILACS, and PsycINFO. We also searched PEDro (3 December 2015) and clinical trials registers (3 December 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with either no intervention, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who had undergone CTS surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review we included 22 trials with a total of 1521 participants. Two of the trials were newly identified at this update. We studied different rehabilitation treatments including immobilisation using a wrist orthosis, dressings, exercise, controlled cold therapy, ice therapy, multi-modal hand rehabilitation, laser therapy, electrical modalities, scar desensitisation, and arnica. Three trials compared a rehabilitation treatment to a placebo, four compared rehabilitation to a no treatment control, three compared rehabilitation to standard care, and 15 compared various rehabilitation treatments to one another.Overall, the included studies were very low in quality. Thirteen trials explicitly reported random sequence generation; of these, five adequately concealed the allocation sequence. Four trials achieved blinding of both participants and outcome assessors. Five were at high risk of bias from incompleteness of outcome data at one or more time intervals, and eight had high risk of selective reporting bias.These trials were heterogeneous in terms of treatments provided, duration of interventions, the nature and timing of outcomes measured, and setting. Therefore, we were not able to pool results across trials.Four trials reported our primary outcome, change in self reported functional ability at three months or more. Of these, three trials provided sufficient outcome data for inclusion in this review. One small high-quality trial studied a desensitisation programme compared with standard treatment and revealed no statistically significant functional benefit based on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to 0.33). One low-quality trial assessed participants six months post surgery using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and found no significant difference between a no formal therapy group and a group given a two-week course of multi-modal therapy commenced at five to seven days post surgery (MD 1.00, 95% CI -4.44 to 6.44). One very low-quality quasi-randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in function on the BCTQ at three months post surgery with early immobilisation (plaster wrist orthosis worn until suture removal) compared with a splint and late mobilisation (MD 0.39, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.23).Differences between treatments for secondary outcome measures (change in self reported functional ability measured at less than three months; change in CTS symptoms; change in CTS-related impairment measures; presence of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery; return to work or occupation; and change in neurophysiological parameters) were generally small and not statistically significant. Few studies reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited and, in general, low quality evidence for the benefit of the reviewed interventions. People who have undergone CTS surgery should be informed about the limited evidence of effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation interventions. Until researchers provide results of more high-quality trials that assess the effectiveness and safety of various rehabilitation treatments, the decision to provide rehabilitation following CTS surgery should be based on the clinician's expertise, the patient's preferences and the context of the rehabilitation environment. It is important for researchers to identify patients who respond to a particular treatment and those who do not, and to undertake high-quality studies that evaluate the severity of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery, measure function and return-to-work rates, and control for confounding variables.

Interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease

BACKGROUND

Normal swallowing function is divided into oral, pharyngeal, and oesophageal phases. The anatomy and physiology of the oral cavity facilitates an oral preparatory phase of swallowing, in which food and liquid are pushed towards the pharynx by the tongue. During pharyngeal and oesophageal phases of swallowing, food and liquid are moved from the pharynx to the stomach via the oesophagus. Our understanding of swallowing function in health and disease has informed our understanding of how muscle weakness can disrupt swallowing in people with muscle disease. As a common complication of long-term, progressive muscle disease, there is a clear need to evaluate the current interventions for managing swallowing difficulties (dysphagia). This is an update of a review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for dysphagia in people with long-term, progressive muscle disease.

SEARCH METHODS

On 11 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, LILACS, and CINAHL. We checked references in the identified trials for additional randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 12 January 2016 for ongoing or completed but unpublished clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of interventions for managing dysphagia in adults and children with long-term, progressive muscle disease, compared to other interventions, placebo, no intervention, or standard care. Quasi-randomised controlled trials are trials that used a quasi-random method of allocation, such as date of birth, alternation, or case record number. Review authors previously excluded trials involving people with muscle conditions of a known inflammatory or toxic aetiology. In this review update, we decided to include trials of people with sporadic inclusion body myositis (IBM) on the basis that it presents as a long-term, progressive muscle disease with uncertain degenerative and inflammatory aetiology and is typically refractory to treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported results in terms of the review's primary outcome of interest, weight gain or maintenance. However, we identified one RCT that assessed the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin on swallowing function in people with IBM. The trial authors did not specify the number of study participants who had dysphagia. There was also incomplete reporting of findings from videofluoroscopic investigations, which was one of the review's secondary outcome measures. The study did report reductions in the time taken to swallow, as measured using ultrasound. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, although data for the follow-up period were lacking. It was also unclear whether the non-serious adverse events reported occurred in the treatment group or the placebo group. We assessed this study as having a high risk of bias and uncertain confidence intervals for the review outcomes, which limited the overall quality of the evidence. Using GRADE criteria, we downgraded the quality of the evidence from this RCT to 'low' for efficacy in treating dysphagia, due to limitations in study design and implementation, and indirectness in terms of the population and outcome measures. Similarly, we assessed the quality of the evidence for adverse events as 'low'. From our search for RCTs, we identified two other non-randomised studies, which reported the effects of long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in adults with IBM and lip-strengthening exercises in children with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Headaches affected two participants treated with long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, who received a tailored dose reduction; there were no adverse events associated with lip-strengthening exercises. Both non-randomised studies identified improved outcomes for some participants following the intervention, but neither study specified the number of participants with dysphagia or demonstrated any group-level treatment effect for swallowing function using the outcomes prespecified in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient and low-quality RCT evidence to determine the effect of interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease. Clinically relevant effects of intravenous immunoglobulin for dysphagia in inclusion body myositis can neither be confirmed or excluded using the evidence presented in this review. Standardised, validated, and reliable outcome measures are needed to assess dysphagia and any possible treatment effect. Clinically meaningful outcomes for dysphagia may require a shift in focus from measures of impairment to disability associated with oral feeding difficulties.

Ascorbic acid for the treatment of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

BACKGROUND

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) comprises a large group of different forms of hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy. The molecular basis of several CMT subtypes has been clarified during the last 20 years. Since slowly progressive muscle weakness and sensory disturbances are the main features of these syndromes, treatments aim to improve motor impairment and sensory disturbances to improve abilities. Pharmacological treatment trials in CMT are rare. This review was derived from a Cochrane review, Treatment for Charcot Marie Tooth disease, which will be updated via this review and a forthcoming title, Treatments other than ascorbic acid for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) treatment for CMT.

SEARCH METHODS

On 21 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatment for CMT. We also checked clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of any ascorbic acid treatment for people with CMT. Where a study aimed to evaluate the treatment of general neuromuscular symptoms of people with peripheral neuropathy including CMT, we included the study if we were able to identify the effect of treatment in the CMT group. We did not include observational studies or case reports of ascorbic acid treatment in people with CMT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BG and JB) independently extracted the data and assessed study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs compared the effect of oral ascorbic acid (1 to 4 grams) and placebo treatment in CMT1A. In five trials involving adults with CMT1A, a total of 622 participants received ascorbic acid or placebo. Trials were largely at low risk of bias. There is high-quality evidence that ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in adults as measured by the CMT neuropathy score (0 to 36 scale) at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -0.37; 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.83 to 0.09; five studies; N = 533), or at 24 months (MD -0.21; 95% CI -0.81 to 0.39; three studies; N = 388). Ascorbic acid treatment showed a positive effect on the nine-hole peg test versus placebo (MD -1.16 seconds; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.37), but the clinical significance of this result is probably small. Meta-analyses of other secondary outcome parameters showed no relevant benefit of ascorbic acid. In one trial, 80 children with CMT1A received ascorbic acid or placebo. The trial showed no clinical benefit of ascorbic acid treatment. Adverse effects did not differ in their nature or abundance between ascorbic acid and placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence indicates that ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in adults in terms of the outcome parameters used. According to low-quality evidence, ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in children. However, CMT1A is slowly progressive and the outcome parameters show only small change over time. Longer study durations should be considered, and outcome parameters more sensitive to change over time should be designed and validated for future studies.

Treatment for dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) in hereditary ataxia

BACKGROUND

Hereditary ataxias are a heterogeneous group of disorders resulting in progressive inco-ordination. Swallowing impairment, also known as dysphagia, is a common and potentially life threatening sequel of disease progression. The incidence and nature of dysphagia in these conditions is largely unknown. The loss of an effective and safe swallow can dramatically affect the health and well-being of an individual. Remediation of difficulties of eating and drinking is an important goal in the clinical care of people with hereditary ataxia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for swallowing impairment (dysphagia) in people with hereditary ataxias.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) on 14 September 2015. We also searched Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), Dissertation Abstracts, and Trials Registries on 24 September 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared treatments for hereditary ataxia with placebo or no treatment. We only included studies measuring dysphagia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (ES, KJ, MK) independently screened all titles and abstracts. In the event of any disagreement or uncertainty over the inclusion of a particular paper, the review authors planned to meet and reach consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs from the 519 titles and abstracts screened. We excluded papers primarily for not including participants with a hereditary ataxia (that is, being focused on other neurological conditions), being theoretical reviews rather than intervention studies, or being neither randomised nor quasi-randomised trials.We identified five papers of various design that described treatment for dysphagia, or improvement to swallow as a by-product of treatment, in people with hereditary ataxia. None of these studies were RCTs or quasi-RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is an absence of any significant evidence supporting the use of any dysphagia intervention in hereditary ataxia. The lack of evidence highlights the critical need for well-controlled treatment trials in the field.

Surgery for scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Scoliosis in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is usually progressive and is treated with surgery. However, it is unclear whether the existing evidence is sufficiently scientifically rigorous to support a recommendation for spinal surgery for most patients with DMD and scoliosis. This is an updated review, and an updated search was undertaken in which no new studies were found for inclusion.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of spinal surgery in patients with DMD with scoliosis. We intended to test whether spinal surgery is effective in increasing survival and improving respiratory function, quality of life, and overall functioning, and whether spinal surgery is associated with severe adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

On 16 June 2015 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. We also searched ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis database (January 1980 to June 2015), the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Database (6 January 2015), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (17 June 2015), and checked references. We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include controlled clinical trials using random or quasi-random allocation of treatment evaluating all forms of spinal surgery for scoliosis in patients with DMD in the review. The control interventions would have been no treatment, non-operative treatment, or a different form of spinal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently examined the search results and evaluated the study characteristics against inclusion criteria in order to decide which studies to include in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 49 relevant studies we found, none met the inclusion criteria for the review because they were not clinical trials, but prospective or retrospective reviews of case series.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since no randomized controlled clinical trials were available to evaluate the effectiveness of scoliosis surgery in patients with DMD, we can make no good evidence-based conclusion to guide clinical practice. Patients with scoliosis should be informed as to the uncertainty of benefits and potential risks of surgery for scoliosis. Randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of scoliosis surgery, in terms of quality of life, functional status, respiratory function, and life expectancy.

Treatment for inclusion body myositis

BACKGROUND

Inclusion body myositis (IBM) is a late-onset inflammatory muscle disease (myopathy) associated with progressive proximal and distal limb muscle atrophy and weakness. Treatment options have attempted to target inflammatory and atrophic features of this condition (for example with immunosuppressive and immunomodulating drugs, anabolic steroids, and antioxidant treatments), although as yet there is no known effective treatment for reversing or minimising the progression of inclusion body myositis. In this review we have considered the benefits, adverse effects, and costs of treatment in targeting cardinal effects of the condition, namely muscle atrophy, weakness, and functional impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatment for IBM.

SEARCH METHODS

On 7 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additionally in November 2014 we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or completed but unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised or quasi-randomised trials, including cross-over trials, of treatment for IBM in adults compared to placebo or any other treatment for inclusion in the review. We specifically excluded people with familial IBM and hereditary inclusion body myopathy, but we included people who had connective tissue and autoimmune diseases associated with IBM, which may or may not be identified in trials. We did not include studies of exercise therapy or dysphagia management, which are topics of other Cochrane systematic reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 10 trials (249 participants) using different treatment regimens. Seven of the 10 trials assessed single agents, and 3 assessed combined agents. Many of the studies did not present adequate data for the reporting of the primary outcome of the review, which was the percentage change in muscle strength score at six months. Pooled data from two trials of interferon beta-1a (n = 58) identified no important difference in normalised manual muscle strength sum scores from baseline to six months (mean difference (MD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.03) between IFN beta-1a and placebo (moderate-quality evidence). A single trial of methotrexate (MTX) (n = 44) provided moderate-quality evidence that MTX did not arrest or slow disease progression, based on reported percentage change in manual muscle strength sum scores at 12 months. None of the fully published trials were adequately powered to detect a treatment effect. We assessed six of the nine fully published trials as providing very low-quality evidence in relation to the primary outcome measure. Three trials (n = 78) compared intravenous immunoglobulin (combined in one trial with prednisone) to a placebo, but we were unable to perform meta-analysis because of variations in study analysis and presentation of trial data, with no access to the primary data for re-analysis. Other comparisons were also reported in single trials. An open trial of anti-T lymphocyte immunoglobulin (ATG) combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low-quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy, based on percentage change in quantitative muscle strength sum scores at 12 months (MD 12.50%, 95% CI 2.43 to 22.57). Data from trials of oxandrolone versus placebo, azathioprine (AZA) combined with MTX versus MTX, and arimoclomol versus placebo did not allow us to report either normalised or percentage change in muscle strength sum scores. A complete analysis of the effects of arimoclomol is pending data publication. Studies of simvastatin and bimagrumab (BYM338) are ongoing. All analysed trials reported adverse events. Only 1 of the 10 trials interpreted these for statistical significance. None of the trials included prespecified criteria for significant adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trials of interferon beta-1a and MTX provided moderate-quality evidence of having no effect on the progression of IBM. Overall trial design limitations including risk of bias, low numbers of participants, and short duration make it difficult to say whether or not any of the drug treatments included in this review were effective. An open trial of ATG combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low-quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy based on the percentage change data given. We were unable to draw conclusions from trials of IVIg, oxandrolone, and AZA plus MTX versus MTX. We need more randomised controlled trials that are larger, of longer duration, and that use fully validated, standardised, and responsive outcome measures.

Pharmacological treatment for pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is common, yet it is often under recognised and poorly managed. In recent years, a variety of pharmacological treatment options have been investigated in clinical trials for people with GBS-associated pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for various pain symptoms associated with GBS, during both the acute and convalescent (three months or more after onset) phases of GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 November 2014, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in participants with confirmed GBS, with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. For cross-over trials, an adequate washout period between phases was required for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Three short-term RCTs, which enrolled 277 randomised participants with acute phase GBS, were included. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally unclear due to insufficient information. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome selected for this review, which was number of patients with self reported pain relief of 50% or greater. One small study investigated seven-day regimens of gabapentin versus placebo. Pain was rated on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). Amongst the 18 participants, significantly lower mean pain scores were found at the endpoint (day 7) in the gabapentin phase compared to the endpoint of the placebo phase (mean difference -3.61, 95% CI -4.12 to -3.10) (very low quality evidence). For adverse events, no significant differences were found in the incidence of nausea (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04) or constipation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.54). A second study enrolling 36 participants compared gabapentin, carbamazepine and placebo, all administered over seven days. Participants in the gabapentin group had significantly lower median pain scores on all treatment days in comparison to the placebo and carbamazepine groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the carbamazepine and placebo groups from day 1 to day 3, but from day 4 until the end of the study significantly lower median pain scores were noted in the carbamazepine group (P < 0.05) (very low quality evidence). There were no adverse effects of gabapentin or carbamazepine reported, other than sedation. One large RCT (223 participants, all also treated with intravenous immunoglobulin), compared a five-day course of methylprednisolone with placebo and found no statistically significant differences in number of participants developing pain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16), number of participants with decreased pain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42) or number of participants with increased pain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41) (low quality evidence). The study did not report whether there were any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review we found no new studies. While management of pain in GBS is essential and pharmacotherapy is widely accepted as being an important component of treatment, this review does not provide sufficient evidence to support the use of any pharmacological intervention in people with pain in GBS. Although reductions in pain severity were found when comparing gabapentin and carbamazepine with placebo, the evidence was limited and its quality very low. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required to further investigate the efficacy and safety of potential interventions for patients with pain in GBS. Additionally, interventions for pain in the convalescent phase of GBS should be investigated.

Quinine for muscle cramps

BACKGROUND

Muscle cramps can occur anywhere and for many reasons. Quinine has been used to treat cramps of all causes. However, controversy continues about its efficacy and safety. This review was first published in 2010 and searches were updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of quinine-based agents in treating muscle cramps.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We searched reference lists of articles up to 2014. We also searched for ongoing trials in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of people of all ages with muscle cramps in any location and of any cause, treated with quinine or its derivatives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. For comparisons including more than one trial, we assessed the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 trials with a total of 1586 participants. Fifty-eight per cent of these participants were from five unpublished studies. Quinine was compared to placebo (20 trials, n = 1140), vitamin E (four trials, n = 543), a quinine-vitamin E combination (three trials, n = 510), a quinine-theophylline combination (one trial, n = 77), and xylocaine injections into the gastrocnemius muscle (one trial, n = 24). The most commonly used quinine dosage was 300 mg/day (range 200 to 500 mg). We found no new trials for inclusion when searches were updated in 2014.The risk of bias in the trials varied considerably. All 23 trials claimed to be randomised, but only a minority described randomisation and allocation concealment adequately.Compared to placebo, quinine significantly reduced cramp number over two weeks by 28%, cramp intensity by 10%, and cramp days by 20%. Cramp duration was not significantly affected.A significantly greater number of people suffered minor adverse events on quinine than placebo (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0% to 6%), mainly gastrointestinal symptoms. Overdoses of quinine have been reported elsewhere to cause potentially fatal adverse effects, but in the included trials there was no significant difference in major adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 2%). One participant suffered from thrombocytopenia (0.12% risk) on quinine.A quinine-vitamin E combination, vitamin E alone, and xylocaine injections into gastrocnemius were not significantly different to quinine across all outcomes, including adverse effects. Based on a single trial comparison, quinine alone was significantly less effective than a quinine-theophylline combination but with no significant differences in adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence that quinine (200 mg to 500 mg daily) significantly reduces cramp number and cramp days and moderate quality evidence that quinine reduces cramp intensity. There is moderate quality evidence that with use up to 60 days, the incidence of serious adverse events is not significantly greater than for placebo in the identified trials, but because serious adverse events can be rarely fatal, in some countries prescription of quinine is severely restricted.Evidence from single trials suggests that theophylline combined with quinine improves cramps more than quinine alone, and the effects of xylocaine injections into gastrocnemius are not significantly different to quinine across all outcomes. Low or moderate quality evidence shows no significant difference between quinine and vitamin E or quinine and quinine-vitamin E mixture. Further research into these alternatives, as well other pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, is thus warranted.There is no evidence to judge optimal dosage or duration of quinine treatment. Further studies using different dosages and measurement of serum quinine levels will allow a therapeutic range to be defined for muscle cramp. Because serious adverse events are not common, large population studies are required to more accurately inform incidence. Longer lengths of follow-up in future trials will help determine the duration of action following cessation of quinine as well as long-term adverse events. The search for new therapies, pharmacological and nonpharmacological, should continue and further trials should compare vitamin E, quinine-vitamin E combination, and quinine-theophylline mixture with quinine.

Treatment for IgG and IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Paraproteinaemic neuropathy refers to those neuropathies associated with a monoclonal gammopathy or paraprotein. The most common of these present with a chronic, predominantly sensory, symmetrical neuropathy, similar to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) but with relatively more sensory involvement, both clinically and neurophysiologically. The optimal treatment for neuropathies associated with IgG and IgA monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance is not known. This is an update of a review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 January 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also checked bibliographies for controlled trials of treatments for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. We checked clinical trials registries for ongoing studies in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. We excluded people with IgM paraproteins. We excluded people where the monoclonal gammopathy was considered secondary to an underlying disorder. We included participants of any age with a diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance with a paraprotein of the IgG or IgA class and a neuropathy. Included participants were not required to fulfil specific electrophysiological diagnostic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to select studies, extract data and analyse results. One trial author provided additional data and clarification.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one RCT, with 18 participants, that fulfilled the predetermined inclusion criteria. The trial compared plasma exchange to sham plasma exchange in participants with IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy over a three-week follow-up period. We identified four other studies but these were not RCTs or quasi-RCTs. The included RCT did not report our predefined primary outcome measure, change in disability six months after randomisation. The trial revealed a modest benefit of plasma exchange in the weakness component of the Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS, now the Neuropathy Impairment Score); the mean improvement with plasma exchange was 17 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 28.8 points) versus 1 point (95% CI -7.7 to 9.7 points) in the sham exchange group at three weeks' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 16.00; 95% CI 1.37 to 30.63, low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall NDS (MD 18.00; 95% CI -2.03 to 38.03, low quality evidence), vibration thresholds or neurophysiological indices. Adverse events were not reported. The trial was at low risk of bias overall, although limitations of trial size and duration reduce the quality of the evidence in support of its conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs for the treatment of IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy is currently inadequate. More RCTs of treatments are required. These should have adequate follow-up periods and contain larger numbers of participants, perhaps through multicentre collaboration, considering the relative infrequency of this condition. Observational or open trial data provide limited support for the use of treatments such as plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide combined with prednisolone, intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids. These interventions show potential therapeutic promise but the potential benefits must be weighed against adverse effects. Their optimal use and the long-term benefits need to be considered and validated with well-designed RCTs.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is characterised by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetrical limb weakness and usually multiple partial motor nerve conduction blocks. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial but the role of immunosuppressive agents is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 September 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS for trials of MMN. We also searched two trials registers for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We considered prospective and retrospective case series and case reports in the Discussion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched the titles and abstracts of the articles identified and extracted the data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one RCT of an immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory agent has been performed in MMN. This study randomised 28 participants and showed that mycophenolate mofetil, when used with IVIg, did not significantly improve strength, function or reduce the need for IVIg. No serious adverse events were observed. The study was deemed at low risk of bias. We summarised the results of retrospective and prospective case series in the discussion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to moderate quality evidence, mycophenolate mofetil did not produce significant benefit in terms of reducing need for IVIg or improving muscle strength in MMN. Trials of other immunosuppressants should be undertaken.