-
The American Journal of the Medical... May 2021Acute mountain sickness (AMS) is a benign and self-limiting syndrome but can progress to life-threatening conditions if leave untreated. This study aimed to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute mountain sickness (AMS) is a benign and self-limiting syndrome but can progress to life-threatening conditions if leave untreated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of acetazolamide for the prophylaxis of AMS and disclose potential factors that affect the treatment effect of acetazolamide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of acetazolamide versus placebo for the prevention of AMS were included. The incidence of AMS was the primary endpoint. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to explore potential factors associated with acetazolamide efficacy. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to estimate the statistical power of the available data.
RESULTS
A total of 22 trials were included. Acetazolamide at 125, 250, and 375 mg/ twice daily (bid) significantly reduced incidence of AMS compared to placebo. TAS indicated that the current evidence was adequate confirming the efficacy of acetazolamide at 125, 250, and 375 mg/bid in lowering incidence of AMS. There was no evidence of an association between efficacy and dose of acetazolamide, timing at start of acetazolamide treatment, mode of ascent, AMS assessment score, timing of AMS assessment, baseline altitude, and endpoint altitude.
CONCLUSION
Acetazolamide is effective prophylaxis for the prevention of AMS in doses of 125, 250, and 375 mg/bid. Future investigations should focus on personal characteristics, disclosing the correlation between acetazolamide efficacy and body mass, height, degree of prior acclimatization, individual inborn susceptibility, and history of AMS.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Altitude Sickness; Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33587912
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2020.12.022 -
Journal of Neurosurgery. Pediatrics Nov 2014The objective of this systematic review and analysis was to answer the following question: What are the optimal treatment strategies for posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus... (Review)
Review
OBJECT
The objective of this systematic review and analysis was to answer the following question: What are the optimal treatment strategies for posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) in premature infants?
METHODS
Both the US National Library of Medicine and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to PHH. Two hundred thirteen abstracts were reviewed, after which 98 full-text publications that met inclusion criteria that had been determined a priori were selected and reviewed.
RESULTS
Following a review process and an evidentiary analysis, 68 full-text articles were accepted for the evidentiary table and 30 publications were rejected. The evidentiary table was assembled linking recommendations to strength of evidence (Classes I-III).
CONCLUSIONS
There are 7 recommendations for the management of PHH in infants. Three recommendations reached Level I strength, which represents the highest degree of clinical certainty. There were two Level II and two Level III recommendations for the management of PHH. Recommendation Concerning Surgical Temporizing Measures: I. Ventricular access devices (VADs), external ventricular drains (EVDs), ventriculosubgaleal (VSG) shunts, or lumbar punctures (LPs) are treatment options in the management of PHH. Clinical judgment is required.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level II, moderate degree of clinical certainty. Recommendation Concerning Surgical Temporizing Measures: II. The evidence demonstrates that VSG shunts reduce the need for daily CSF aspiration compared with VADs.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level II, moderate degree of clinical certainty. Recommendation Concerning Routine Use of Serial Lumbar Puncture: The routine use of serial lumbar puncture is not recommended to reduce the need for shunt placement or to avoid the progression of hydrocephalus in premature infants.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level I, high clinical certainty. Recommendation Concerning Nonsurgical Temporizing Agents: I. Intraventricular thrombolytic agents including tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), urokinase, or streptokinase are not recommended as methods to reduce the need for shunt placement in premature infants with PHH.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level I, high clinical certainty. Recommendation Concerning Nonsurgical Temporizing Agents. II. Acetazolamide and furosemide are not recommended as methods to reduce the need for shunt placement in premature infants with PHH.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level I, high clinical certainty. Recommendation Concerning Timing of Shunt Placement: There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific weight or CSF parameter to direct the timing of shunt placement in premature infants with PHH. Clinical judgment is required.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level III, unclear clinical certainty. Recommendation Concerning Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) in premature infants with posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus.
STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
Level III, unclear clinical certainty.
Topics: Cerebral Hemorrhage; Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunts; Contraindications; Drainage; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Hydrocephalus; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Neuroendoscopy; Spinal Puncture; Third Ventricle; United States; Ventriculostomy
PubMed: 25988778
DOI: 10.3171/2014.7.PEDS14322 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) has an estimated incidence of one to three people per 100,000 people per year, and occurs most commonly in obese, young women.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) has an estimated incidence of one to three people per 100,000 people per year, and occurs most commonly in obese, young women. IIH is associated with severe morbidity, notably due to a significant threat to sight and severe headache. Several different management options have been proposed. Conservative measures centre on weight loss. Pharmacological therapy includes use of diuretics. Refractory and sight-threatening cases demand surgical intervention, most often in the form of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion or optic nerve sheath fenestration. Other treatments include venous sinus stenting and bariatric surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of any intervention for IIH in any patient group.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which any intervention was compared to placebo, or to another form of treatment, for people with a clinical diagnosis of IIH.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results for trials to be included in the review. We resolved any discrepancies by third party decision.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two completed RCTs (enrolling a total of 211 participants and conducted in the UK and US) and two ongoing trials that met the inclusion criteria. Both completed trials compared acetazolamide to placebo, in conjunction with a weight loss intervention in both groups. Attrition bias was a problem in both trials with high loss to follow-up, in one study this loss to follow-up occurred particularly in the acetazolamide arm. One trial was unmasked and we judged it to be at risk of performance and detection bias.In these studies, change in visual acuity was similar in the treatment and control groups as measured by logMAR acuity. In one study people in the acetalomazide group had a similar change in logMAR acuity compared to the placebo group between baseline and 12 months in the right eye (MD 0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16) and left eye (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.15). In the other study people in the acetalomazide group had a similar change in vision over six months compared with people in the placebo group (mean difference in change in letters read was 0.01 (95% CI -1.45 to 1.46). One study reported no cases of visual loss in 21 people treated with acetalomazide compared to 2/20 cases in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.17, 95% CI 0.01, 3.82).The prespecified outcome for this review was reduction in CSF pressure to normal levels which was not reported by the two trials. One trial reported that, in a subsample of 85 participants who agreed to lumbar puncture at 6 months, people in the acetalomazide group on average had a greater reduction in CSF pressure (MD -59.9 mmH(2)O, 95% CI -96.4, -23.4).In one study, people in the acetalozamide group on average experienced a greater reduction in papilloedema as assessed by fundus photographs MD -0.70 (95% CI -1.00 to -0.40) and by clinical grading MD -0.91 (95% CI -1.27 to -0.54) between baseline and six months in the study eye.Headache was recorded as present/absent in one study at 12 months (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12,1.41, 41 participants). Both studies reported headache on visual analogue scales (different ones) but results were inconclusive (MD for change in headache score measured on 10-point visual analogue scale at 12 months was 1.0 (-1.80, 3.70, 41 participants) and MD for change in headache score on a 6 point scale measured at 6 months was -0.45 (-3.5,2.6, number of participants unclear).In one study, a similar proportion of people in the acetalomazide group were in remission (however, the trial authors did not state their definition of this term) at 12 months compared to the placebo group. However, the 95% CIs were wide and there is considerable uncertainty as to the effect (OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.32 to 3.90, 41 participants).In one study of 185 participants, people in the acetalomazide group had an increased risk of decreased CO2, diarrhoea, dysgeusia, fatigue, nausea, paresthesia, tinnitus and vomiting compared to people in the placebo group. In general, the estimates of effect were uncertain with wide 95% CIs. Adverse effects were not reported in the other study.One study reported that quality of life was better in acetazolamide-treated patients based on the visual quality of life (VFQ-25) (MD 6.35, 95% CI 2.22 to 10.47) and the physical (MD 3.02, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.70) and mental (MD 3.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 6.55) components of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey tool at six months. Costs were not reported in either study.We judged the evidence to be low certainty (GRADE) downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although the two included RCTs showed modest benefits for acetazolamide for some outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to recommend or reject the efficacy of this intervention, or any other treatments currently available, for treating people with IIH. Further high-quality RCTs are required in order to adequately assess the effect of acetazolamide therapy in people with IIH.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure; Female; Headache; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity; Weight Loss
PubMed: 26250102
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003434.pub3 -
Journal of Nephrology Jan 2024Urine alkalization is one of the standard treatments to prevent acute kidney injury in patients receiving high-dose methotrexate. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Urine alkalization is one of the standard treatments to prevent acute kidney injury in patients receiving high-dose methotrexate. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors are promising adjuvants/substitutes with advantages such as faster urine alkalization time and prevention of fluid overload. However, there is limited and contradictory evidence on its efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors to standard treatments in adult patients receiving high-dose methotrexate.
METHODS
The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022352802) in August 2021. We evaluated the use of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in combination with standard treatment compared to standard treatment alone. We excluded articles irrelevant to the efficacy and safety of acetazolamide in patients receiving high dose methotrexate and/or did not provide sufficient data regarding doses, recruitment criteria, and follow-up period. Two authors performed the data extraction independently.
RESULTS
Among 198 articles retrieved, six observational studies met all eligibility criteria. Four studies with five datasets (totaling 558 patients/cycles) had enough data to be included in the meta-analysis. We independently report the results from the two remaining studies. The results did not show a significant difference between acetazolamide versus standard treatment in acute kidney injury (AKI) rate (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.48-1.29, P = 0.34, I = 0%). Regarding the time to urine pH goal, there was no significant time difference between the two groups (Mean Difference = 0.07, 95% CI - 1.9 to 2.04, P = 0.95, I = 25%). Furthermore, our meta-analysis showed that acetazolamide did not reduce length of stay (Mean Difference = 0.75, 95% CI - 0.8 to 2.31, P = 0.34, I = 0%). In one study, the only reported side effect of acetazolamide was hypokalemia (nearly 50% in the acetazolamide group).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review showed no significant difference between acetazolamide and standard care treatment regarding urine alkalinization time and AKI rate in adult patients receiving high dose methotrexate. We suggest performing a large blinded, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the potential benefits of this low-cost medication.
PubMed: 38265601
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-023-01850-2 -
PloS One 2017Ibuprofen is used to prevent high altitude headache (HAH) but its efficacy remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Ibuprofen is used to prevent high altitude headache (HAH) but its efficacy remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of ibuprofen for the prevention of HAH.
METHODS
Studies reporting efficacy of ibuprofen for prevention of HAH were identified by searching electronic databases (until December 2016). The primary outcome was the difference in incidence of HAH between ibuprofen and placebo groups. Risk ratios (RR) were aggregated using a Mantel-Haenszel random effect model. Heterogeneity of included trials was assessed using the I2 statistics.
RESULTS
In three randomized-controlled clinical trials involving 407 subjects, HAH occurred in 101 of 239 subjects (42%) who received ibuprofen and 96 of 168 (57%) who received placebo (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, Z = 2.43, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%). The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 15%. Number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent HAH was 7. Similarly, The incidence of severe HAH was significant in the two groups (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.93, Z = 2.14, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). Severe HAH occurred in 3% treated with ibuprofen and 10% with placebo. The ARR was 8%. NNT to prevent severe HAH was 13. Headache severity using a visual analogue scale was not different between ibuprofen and placebo. Similarly, the difference between the two groups in the change in SpO2 from baseline to altitude was not different. One included RCT reported one participant with black stools and three participants with stomach pain in the ibuprofen group, while seven participants reported stomach pain in the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a limited number of studies ibuprofen seems efficacious for the prevention of HAH and may therefore represent an alternative for preventing HAH with acetazolamide or dexamethasone.
Topics: Altitude; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Databases, Factual; Headache; Humans; Ibuprofen; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Stomach Diseases
PubMed: 28632763
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179788 -
Applied Health Economics and Health... Oct 2015Robot assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy to assist in surgical procedures, has high capital and operating costs.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Robot assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy to assist in surgical procedures, has high capital and operating costs. Systematically assembled evidence demonstrating its clinical and cost effectiveness would be helpful for its adoption by decision makers.
OBJECTIVE
To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery compared with relevant alternatives. Methods and results of identified studies were assessed to identify the deficiencies in evidence and areas for further research.
METHODS
Studies reporting both costs and outcomes for comparisons of RAL with laparoscopy and/or open surgery were systematically identified. Searches were conducted in February 2015 on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED. Quality of the included studies was assessed against a standard checklist for economic analyses. Length of hospital stay and operating time (determinants of cost), cost of intervention, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were extracted. To aid comparison, costs were converted into a common currency and price year (2014 US dollars).
RESULTS
Forty-seven eligible studies were identified (full economic evaluation n = 6 and cost analysis n = 41). Economic models were used in 11 (23%) studies. Only three studies used a model considered representative of the disease and clinical pathway with a time-horizon allowing capture of relevant differences in outcomes across strategies. The cost of RAL varied substantially between uses, ranging from US$7011 for hysterectomy to over US$30,000 for radical cystectomy. The majority of estimates were between US$15,000 and US$25,000 per person. In part this difference is explained by the difference between studies in which costs were included. It was also identified to have higher costs than the alternatives it was compared against. Incremental cost per QALY for RAL radical prostatectomy was US$28,801-$31,763 over a 10-year period assuming 200 cases per annum.
CONCLUSION
The clinical evidence available for RAL overall and used within included studies is limited. RAL surgery costs were consistently higher than open and laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, in adopting the robotic technology decision makers need to take into account the cost effectiveness within their own systems. Economic models generated and published for radical prostatectomy and hysterectomy may be adapted to other health systems if the care pathway is similar to provide locally relevant data.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Costs and Cost Analysis; Humans; Laparoscopy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26239361
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-015-0185-2 -
World Neurosurgery May 2024Ischemic stroke significantly contributes to high mortality and disability rates. Cerebral edema is a common consequence of ischemic stroke and can lead to aggravation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ischemic stroke significantly contributes to high mortality and disability rates. Cerebral edema is a common consequence of ischemic stroke and can lead to aggravation or even death. Current treatment strategies are limited to decompressive craniectomy and the intravascular administration of hypertonic drugs, which have significant side effects. Acetazolamide (ACZ) plays a therapeutic role in cerebral edema by inhibiting aquaporin-4 (AQP-4) and improving collateral circulation. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of ACZ therapy for ischemic stroke and evaluate its efficacy in animal models.
METHODS
We searched Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database until April 2023 for studies on ACZ in ischemic animal models. The quality of the animal trials was assessed using the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Stroke.
RESULTS
After screening 376 articles, only 5 studies were included. We found that ACZ reduced brain edema in cerebral ischemia 24 hours after onset (standard mean difference, -2.00; 95% confidence interval, -3.57 to -0.43, P = 0.01). ACZ also inhibited AQP-4 expression 24 hours after onset (standard mean difference-1.46; 95% confidence interval, -2.01 to -0.91, P < 0.001). Brain edema and AQP-4 expression also showed a declining trend on the third day after onset, although there were not enough data to support this. The effect of ACZ on brain ischemia in animals' neurological function is uncertain because of the limited research data.
CONCLUSIONS
ACZ inhibited AQP-4 and alleviated brain edema after ischemic stroke in the early stages but seemingly could not improve the neurological function.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Ischemic Stroke; Animals; Brain Edema; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Aquaporin 4; Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors; Disease Models, Animal
PubMed: 38423457
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.123 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Apr 2020Acetazolamide (AZM) is used for various conditions (eg, altitude sickness, sleep apnoea, glaucoma), but therapy is often limited by its side effect profile. Our... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Acetazolamide (AZM) is used for various conditions (eg, altitude sickness, sleep apnoea, glaucoma), but therapy is often limited by its side effect profile. Our objective was to estimate the risk of commonly reported side effects based on meta-analyses. We hypothesised that these risks are dose-dependent.
METHODS
We queried MEDLINE/EMBASE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online/Excerpta Medica dataBASE) up until 04/10/2019, including any randomised placebo-controlled trial in which adults received oral AZM versus placebo reporting side effects. Eligibility assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. Data were abstracted by one reviewer who verified key entries at a second time point. For side effects reported by 3 studies a pooled effect estimate was calculated, and heterogeneity assessed via I; for outcomes reported by 5 studies effect modification by total daily dose (EMbyTDD; <400 mg/d, 400-600 mg/d, >600 mg/d) was assessed via meta-regression. For pre-specified, primary outcomes (paraesthesias, taste disturbances, polyuria and fatigue) additional subgroup analyses were performed using demographics, intervention details, laboratory changes and risk of bias.
RESULTS
We included 42 studies in the meta-analyses (N=1274/1211 in AZM/placebo groups). AZM increased the risk of all primary outcomes (p<0.01, I ≤16% and low-to-moderate quality of evidence for all)-the numbers needed to harm (95% CI; n) for each were: paraesthesias 2.3 (95% CI 2 to 2.7; n=39), dysgeusia 18 (95% CI 10 to 38, n=22), polyuria 17 (95% CI 9 to 49; n=22), fatigue 11 (95% CI 6 to 24; n=14). The risk for paraesthesias (beta=1.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.9); P=0.01) and dysgeusia (beta=3.1 (95% CI 1.2 to 8.2); P=0.02) increased with higher AZM doses; the risk of fatigue also increased with higher dose but non-significantly (beta=2.6 (95% CI 0.7 to 9.4); P=0.14).
DISCUSSION
This comprehensive meta-analysis of low-to-moderate quality evidence defines risk of common AZM side effects and corroborates dose dependence of some side effects. These results may inform clinical decision making and support efforts to establish the lowest effective dose of AZM for various conditions.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Adult; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Dysgeusia; Fatigue; Humans; Paresthesia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32332024
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000557 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses.Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy, and may have a significant negative impact on quality of life. Women may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aimed to address these issues in order to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 10 January 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web; includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946 to 9 January 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blinded or opeṉlabel design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. Types of interventions included: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and mean change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 62 records from the databases and search strategies. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses.Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for mean change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results on the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported that the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group.Results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason in the pooled progesterone RCTs when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or for treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals from the norethisterone RCTs were reported. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life.We judged the evidence from the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias and from the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out.Our review highlighted an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those patients who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
PubMed: 31608992
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub2 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jan 2015The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the clinical utility of acute mountain sickness (AMS) history to predict future incidents of AMS. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the clinical utility of acute mountain sickness (AMS) history to predict future incidents of AMS.
METHOD
17 studies (n=7921 participants) were included following a systematic review of the literature. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test, and moderator variables were tested to explain the heterogeneity across studies. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) method was used to assess concerns for bias and applicability for the included studies.
RESULTS
The history of AMS had a low diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of future AMS incidents: the summary sensitivity was 0.50 (95% CI (0.40 to 0.59)) and the summary specificity was 0.72 (95% CI (0.66 to 0.78)). There was significant heterogeneity in the sensitivity and specificity across studies, which we modelled using moderator analysis. Studies that restricted the use of acetazolamide and dexamethasone had not only a higher sensitivity (0.66) relative to those that did not (0.44; p=0.03) but also an increased false-positive rate (0.39 vs 0.23, p=0.03). The QUADAS-2 analysis showed that AMS histories were insufficiently detailed, and few studies controlled for prophylactic medication use or recent altitude exposure, leading to high risks of bias and concerns for applicability.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of AMS history to guide prophylactic strategies for high-altitude ascent is not supported by the literature; however, the low sensitivity and specificity of this diagnostic test could reflect the quality of the available studies. Ensuring that the characteristics of the history and future ascents are similar may improve the clinical utility of AMS history.
Topics: Acute Disease; Altitude Sickness; Disease Susceptibility; Humans; Medical History Taking; Recurrence; Reference Standards; Selection Bias; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 24297836
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092921