-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2012.Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. Despite the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2012.Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. Despite the plethora of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) currently available, 30% of people continue having seizures. This group of people requires a more aggressive treatment, since monotherapy, the first choice scheme, fails to control seizures. Nevertheless, polytherapy often results in a number of unwanted effects, including neurological disturbances (somnolence, ataxia, dizziness), psychiatric and behavioural symptoms, and metabolic alteration (osteoporosis, inducement or inhibition of hepatic enzymes, etc.). The need for better tolerated AEDs is even more urgent in this group of people. Reports have suggested an antiepileptic role of melatonin with a good safety profile.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of melatonin as add-on treatment for epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (12 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 12 January 2016), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 11 January 2016). We searched the bibliographies of any identified study for further references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings. We applied no language restrictions. In addition, we contacted melatonin manufacturers (i.e. Nathura) and original investigators to identify any unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials; double, single, or unblinded trials; parallel group or cross-over studies. People with epilepsy regardless of age and gender, including children and adults with disabilities. Administration of melatonin as add-on treatment to any AED(s) compared to add-on placebo or no add-on treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to pre-defined criteria, extracted relevant data, and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: at least 50% seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six publications, with 125 participants (106 aged under 18 years). Two different comparisons were available: melatonin versus placebo and melatonin 5 mg versus melatonin 10 mg. Despite our primary intention, due to insufficient information on outcomes, we were unable to perform any meta-analyses, but summarized data narratively. Four studies were randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trials and two were randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trials. Only two studies provided the exact number of seizures during the trial compared to the baseline: none of the participants with seizures during the trial had a change in seizure frequency compared with the baseline. Two studies systematically evaluated adverse effects (worsening of headache was reported in a child with migraine under melatonin treatment). Only one study systematically evaluated quality of life, showing no statistically significant improvement in quality of life in the add-on melatonin group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Included studies were of poor methodological quality, and did not systematically evaluate seizure frequency and adverse events, so that it was impossible to summarize data in a meta-analysis. It is not possible to draw any conclusion about the role of melatonin in reducing seizure frequency or improving quality of life in people with epilepsy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsy; Humans; Infant; Melatonin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 27513702
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006967.pub4 -
BMC Primary Care Dec 2023Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point estimates or certainty of evidence. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis and clarified the efficacy of EM for BPPV, regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials of EM for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV in primary-care and subspecialty settings. A primary-care setting was defined as a practice setting by general practitioners, primary-care doctors, or family doctors. A systematic search was conducted in January 2022 across databases, including Cochrane Central Resister of Controlled Trial, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes were the disappearance of subjective symptoms (vertigo), negative findings (Dix-Hallpike test), and all adverse events. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials were identified. In primary-care settings, EM reduced the subjective symptoms [risk ratio (RR), 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-5.02]; however, there was no applicable article for all adverse events. In the subspeciality setting, EM reduced the subjective symptoms (RR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.64-3.56), resulting in an increase in negative findings (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.40-2.34). The evidence exhibited uncertainty about the effect of EM on negative findings in primary-care settings and all adverse events in subspecialty settings.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings, EM for BPPV was effective. This study has shown the significance of performing EM for BPPV in primary-care settings. EM for BPPV in a primary-care setting may aid in preventing referrals to higher tertiary care facilities and hospitalisation for follow-up.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study was registered in protocols.io (PROTOCOL INTEGER ID: 51,464) on July 11, 2021.
Topics: Humans; Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; General Practitioners; Hospitalization; Language; MEDLINE
PubMed: 38042776
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-023-02217-z -
Medicine Sep 2021Alpha-adrenergic blockers are commonly used as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for patients with ureteral calculi. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Alpha-adrenergic blockers are commonly used as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for patients with ureteral calculi. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of alpha-adrenergic blockers compared with a placebo when used as a MET.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We carried out a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, and the Cochrane Library, for relevant articles from inception to November 2020. Our aim was to identify placebo-controlled trails in which patients were randomized to receive either alpha-adrenergic blockers (tamsulosin, alfuzosin, doxazosin, terazosin, naftopidil, or silodosin) or a placebo for the treatment of ureteral calculi.
RESULTS
According to strict inclusion criteria, database searches identified 8 placebo-controlled studies that included 2284 patients. Generally, α-blockers had no significant effect on the clearance of stones in the urinary tract (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.11). However, subgroup analysis showed that α-blockers were effective in treating distal urinary tract stones (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.02-1.15). With regards to adverse events, our analysis showed that the combination of MET with α-blockers was likely to cause dizziness (RR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.06-1.79) and retrograde ejaculation (RR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.81-5.29).
CONCLUSION
Although α-blockers cannot improve the overall ureteral stone clearance rate, these drugs are still effective for the treatment of stones in the distal urinary tract. However, the application of α-blockers is likely to cause dizziness and/or retrograde ejaculation.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Humans; Odds Ratio; Placebos; Treatment Outcome; Ureteral Calculi
PubMed: 34664882
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027272 -
Journal of Neurosciences in Rural... Jan 2022Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is one of the most difficult to treat childhood-onset epileptic encephalopathies. There is growing evidence that lacosamide is safe and...
Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is one of the most difficult to treat childhood-onset epileptic encephalopathies. There is growing evidence that lacosamide is safe and efficacious in patients and adults with refractory epilepsy. However, the evidence regarding the efficacy of lacosamide in LGS is controversial so far. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide in patients with LGS. We conducted a systematic review on MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, collating all available literature till July 31, 2020. The qualitative review included case reports, case series, and both controlled/uncontrolled trials as well as retrospective studies, but for determining pooled estimates, we only included studies with a sample size of 5 or more. The primary outcome was the efficacy of lacosamide in patients with LGS. Clinical variables related to efficacy and adverse events attributed to lacosamide were extracted from each publication. The pooled estimate of variables related to these parameters was performed using a random-effect model. Of the 68 items identified by the search, 14 were reviewed as full-text. Eleven articles including two prospective and six retrospective studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and described outcomes in 81 patients (42 adults, 39 children, 60% male, range-1.4-61 years). On average, 35.2%, 27.9%, 7.3%, and 29.4% patients had > 50% reduction, < 50% reduction, no change, and worsening of seizure frequency, respectively. Although 36% of patients had adverse events like somnolence, behavioral abnormalities including irritability, aggressiveness, nausea, tremor, memory problems, dizziness, gastrointestinal discomfort, vomiting, and weight loss, no serious adverse events were noted. The evidence available in the current literature is not sufficient to support or refute the use of lacosamide in patients with LGS. Although it is one of the possible therapeutic options worth exploring in patients with LGS, caution is still necessary, as there are reports of worsening of seizure frequency in some patients.
PubMed: 35110918
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740580 -
Experimental Brain Research Jul 2023This qualitative systematic review presents an overview of the state of the research relating to visual motion hypersensitivity (VMH) and offers a reference tool for... (Review)
Review
This qualitative systematic review presents an overview of the state of the research relating to visual motion hypersensitivity (VMH) and offers a reference tool for future studies in the field. The study set out to identify and collate articles investigating risk groups with aberrant responses to visual motion as compared to healthy control groups, presenting evidence for risk factors associated with visual motion hypersensitivity. Data were synthesized into the state of the research and analyzed in the context of the clinical characteristics of each risk factor. Literature searches were performed on Medline Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cinahl, identifying a total of 586 studies of which 54 were finally included. Original articles published between the dates of commencement for each database and 19th January 2021 were included. JBI critical appraisal tools were implemented for each corresponding article type. In total, the following number of studies was identified for each respective risk factor: age (n = 6), migraines (n = 8), concussions (n = 8), vestibular disorders (n = 13), psychiatric conditions (n = 5), and Parkinson's disease (n = 5). Several studies described VMH as the primary concern (n = 6), though these primarily included patients with vestibulopathies. There were considerable differences in the nomenclature employed to describe VMH, depending largely on the investigating group. An overview of investigated risk factors and their evaluation methods was presented in a Sankey diagram. Posturography was the most implemented methodology but due to diverse measurements meta-analyses were not possible. One may however note that while the easily implemented Vestibular Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) was designed for concussed patients, it may prove useful for other risk groups.
Topics: Humans; Vestibular Diseases; Motion; Brain Concussion; Mental Disorders; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 37341755
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06652-3 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Sep 2011Manual therapy is an intervention commonly advocated in the management of dizziness of a suspected cervical origin. Vestibular rehabilitation exercises have been shown...
BACKGROUND
Manual therapy is an intervention commonly advocated in the management of dizziness of a suspected cervical origin. Vestibular rehabilitation exercises have been shown to be effective in the treatment of unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders, and have also been suggested in the literature as an adjunct in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for manual therapy, in conjunction with or without vestibular rehabilitation, in the management of cervicogenic dizziness.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases Scopus, Mantis, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library for terms related to manual therapy, vestibular rehabilitation and cervicogenic dizziness. Included studies were assessed using the Maastricht-Amsterdam criteria.
RESULTS
A total of fifteen articles reporting findings from thirteen unique investigations, including five randomised controlled trials and eight prospective, non-controlled cohort studies were included in this review. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor to moderate. All but one study reported improvement in dizziness following either unimodal or multimodal manual therapy interventions. Some studies reported improvements in postural stability, joint positioning, range of motion, muscle tenderness, neck pain and vertebrobasilar artery blood flow velocity.
DISCUSSION
Although it has been argued that manual therapy combined with vestibular rehabilitation may be superior in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness, there are currently no observational and experimental studies demonstrating such effects. A rationale for combining manual therapy and vestibular rehabilitation in the management of cervicogenic dizziness is presented.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate evidence to support the use of manual therapy, in particular spinal mobilisation and manipulation, for cervicogenic dizziness. The evidence for combining manual therapy and vestibular rehabilitation in the management of cervicogenic dizziness is lacking. Further research to elucidate potential synergistic effects of manual therapy and vestibular rehabilitation is strongly recommended.
PubMed: 21923933
DOI: 10.1186/2045-709X-19-21 -
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Jul 2022After more than a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, audio-vestibular problems have been reported as consequences. Several limited case report studies with different...
INTRODUCTION
After more than a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, audio-vestibular problems have been reported as consequences. Several limited case report studies with different methodologies were published. This study aimed to describe the impact of COVID-19 on the auditory-vestibular system and communication problems in subjects with hearing impairment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The current systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to find relevant articles using combined keywords.
RESULTS
Out of 26 final studies, 20 studies dealt with the effects of COVID-19 on the auditory and vestibular system, and six articles examined the COVID-19 effects on hearing-impaired people and patients. In these studies, dizziness (17.8%), tinnitus (8.1%), and vertigo (2.8%) were common symptoms. Most studies were case reports (42.30%), and in terms of quality, nine studies (34.61%) were in the suitable quality group.
CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 might cause auditory-vestibular system problems by directly affecting the structures or functions of the inner ear or by weakening the immune system. The need for taking preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic has caused communication and social challenges, particularly for people with hearing loss.
PubMed: 36035653
DOI: 10.22038/IJORL.2022.60404.3079 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2022Surgical treatment of vertigo is performed with in-depth study of inner ear diseases. Achieving an effective control of vertigo symptoms while reducing damage to hearing...
Surgical treatment of vertigo is performed with in-depth study of inner ear diseases. Achieving an effective control of vertigo symptoms while reducing damage to hearing and reducing surgical complications is the principle followed by scholars studying surgical modalities. Semicircular canal occlusion is aimed at treatment of partial peripheral vertigo disease and has attracted the attention of scholars because of the above advantages. This article provides a review of the origins of semicircular canal occlusion, related basic research, clinical applications, and the effects of surgery on vestibular and hearing function.
PubMed: 36061608
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.977323 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Non-ergot dopamine agonists (NEDAs) have been used as monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy to levodopa for many years. Novel long-acting formulations of NEDAs...
BACKGROUND
Non-ergot dopamine agonists (NEDAs) have been used as monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy to levodopa for many years. Novel long-acting formulations of NEDAs including pramipexole extended-release (ER), ropinirole prolonged-release (PR), and rotigotine transdermal patch have been developed. However, there is no strong evidence that a given NEDA is more potent than another. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and safety of six commonly used NEDAs in early Parkinson's disease (PD).
METHODS
Six NEDAs including piribedil, rotigotine transdermal patch, pramipexole immediate-release (IR)/ER, and ropinirole IR/PR were investigated. The efficacy outcomes including Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale activities in daily life (UPDRS-II), motor function (UPDRS-III), and their subtotal (UPDRS-II + III), tolerability and safety outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 20 RCTs (5,355 patients) were included in the current study. The result indicated that compared with placebo, all six investigated drugs had statistically significant differences in the improvement of UPDRS-II, UPDRS-III, and UPDRS-II + III (except ropinirole PR in UPDRS-II). There were no statistically significant differences between six NEDAs for the UPDRS-II and UPDRS-III. For UPDRS-II + III, the improvement of ropinirole IR/PR and piribedil were higher than that of rotigotine transdermal patch, and piribedil was higher than that of pramipexole IR. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that piribedil resulted in best improvement in UPDRS-II and UPDRS-III (0.717 and 0.861, respectively). For UPDRS-II + III, piribedil and ropinirole PR exhibited similar improvement and both had high rates (0.858 and 0.878, respectively). Furthermore, piribedil performed better as monotherapy, ranking first in the improvement of UPDRS-II, III, and II + III (0.922, 0.960, and 0.941, separately). With regard to tolerability, there was a significant increase in overall withdrawals with pramipexole ER (0.937). In addition, the incidence of adverse reaction of ropinirole IR was relatively high (nausea: 0.678; somnolence: 0.752; dizziness: 0.758; fatigue: 0.890).
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of six NEDAs, piribedil exhibited better efficacy, especially as monotherapy, and ropinirole IR was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events in patients with early PD.
PubMed: 37396766
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1183823 -
Cureus Nov 2021Our objective is to identify novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with a diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) with an aim to describe... (Review)
Review
Our objective is to identify novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with a diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) with an aim to describe possible mechanisms. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed Our search terms included: "Sensorineural Hearing Loss" + "COVID-19" or "Sensorineural Hearing Loss" + "SARS-CoV-2" or "Sensorineural Hearing Loss" + "Coronavirus". Studies that adhered to the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the review. Of the 20 articles identified in the initial search, five met the inclusion criteria. The included articles consisted of four case studies and one letter to the editor, with seven total patients analyzed. All patients were COVID-19 positive and exhibited SSNHL, either unilateral or bilateral. Four patients reported tinnitus and two patients experienced vertigo. One patient was treated with hydroxychloroquine and one patient was treated with a variety of medications. Four patients were treated with intravenous and/or oral steroids intended to treat the SSNHL. The current literature describing SSNHL in COVID-19 patients is insufficient to characterize the pattern of hearing loss or advise about the treatment or outcomes. Future studies require a larger database or population study.
PubMed: 34938632
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19757