Search

Abstract Background Cervical cerclage is a surgical procedure involving suturing the cervix with a purse type stitch to keep it closed during pregnancy. This procedure has been used widely in the management of pregnancies considered at high risk of preterm delivery. Several observational studies into the efficacy of cervical cerclage have claimed high rates of successful pregnancy outcome in women with a poor obstetric history attributed to cervical incompetence. However, a recent aggregate data Cochrane review found no such conclusive evidence from seven included randomised studies. Current data suggests that cervical cerclage is likely to benefit women considered to be 'at very high risk' of a second trimester miscarriage due to a cervical factor, however identifying such women remains elusive and many women may be treated unnecessarily. Undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of the studies will allow us to investigate whether treatment is more effective in particular subgroups. Such an analysis will also provide a more powerful analysis of the predictors of preterm delivery and pregnancy loss, including ultrasound measurement of cervical length, and will allow a more complete analysis of 'time to event' outcomes. Methods/Design The analysis will include data from randomised trials comparing the intervention of elective cerclage versus no cerclage or bedrest to prevent miscarriage or pre-term labour. A specific list of data will be requested for each trial, including demographic and obstetric history data. The primary outcomes of interest will be neonatal mortality/morbidity. Attention will also be given to secondary outcomes such as time from randomisation to delivery, preterm delivery before 32 weeks and maternal morbidity. An intention to treat analysis will be performed, with attention paid to assessing clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Multilevel models with patients and trials as the two levels will be explored to investigate treatment effect on various outcomes. Patient-level covariates will be incorporated into the models in an attempt to account for statistical heterogeneity as well as to investigate interactions with treatment effect. Discussion Predictive models generated from our analysis should lead to more effective counselling of women at risk and a more cost effective use of cerclage.

Objectives: This study aims to review studies developing or validating a prediction model for transition to psychosis in individuals meeting At Risk Mental State (ARMS) criteria focussing on predictors that can be obtained as part of standard clinical practice. Prediction of transition is crucial to facilitating identification of patients who would benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy and, conversely, those that would benefit from less costly and less-intensive regular mental state monitoring. The review aims to determine whether prediction models rated as low risk of bias exist and, if not, what further research is needed within the field., Design: Bibliographic databases (PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched using index terms relating to the clinical field and prognosis from 1994, the initial year of the first prospective study using ARMS criteria, to July 2024. Screening of titles, abstracts, and subsequently full texts was conducted by two reviewers independently using predefined criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASessment Tool (PROBAST)., Setting: Studies in any setting were included., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome for the review was the identification of prediction models considering transition risk and a summary of their risk of bias., Results: Forty-eight unique prediction models considering risk of transition to psychosis were identified. Variables found to be consistently important when predicting transition were age, gender, global functioning score, trait vulnerability, and unusual thought content. PROBAST criteria categorised four unique prediction models as having an overall low-risk bias. Other studies were insufficiently powered for the number of candidate predictors or lacking enough information to draw a conclusion regarding risk of bias., Conclusions: Two of the 48 identified prediction models were developed using current best practice statistical methodology, validated their model in independent data, and presented low risk of bias overall in line with the PROBAST guidelines. Any new prediction model built to evaluate the risk of transition to psychosis in people meeting ARMS criteria should be informed by the latest statistical methodology and adhere to the TRIPOD reporting guidelines to ensure that clinical practice is informed by the best possible evidence. External validation of such models should be carefully planned particularly considering generalisation across different countries., Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/108488_PROTOCOL_20191127.pdf, identifier CRD42018108488., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Hunt, Law, Carney, Mulholland, Flores, Tudur Smith, Varese, Parker, Yung and Bonnett.)

Background: There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β 2 -agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo., Results: Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control., Conclusions: Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background and Purpose: Children and young people (CYP) with epilepsy see healthcare professionals (HCPs) for management of their seizures but may require information, advice and support with a range of broader topics. The purpose of the survey was to identify from HCPs, which topics CYP with epilepsy and their parents/carers ask about other than seizure management, and how adequately HCPs feel able to support them with these topics., Method: A cross-sectional online survey was used to collect data. Adverts which included a link to the survey were shared via social media channels, professional networks and United Kingdom (UK)-based epilepsy networks. Eighty-eight HCPs in the UK (who worked with CYP with epilepsy and their parents/carers) completed the survey. Quantitative data are presented descriptively. Qualitative data (free-text responses) were reflexively thematically analysed., Results: CYP with epilepsy and their parents/carers were reported to ask HCPs for information, advice and support about a range of topics, most commonly, cognition and mental health. CYP were reported as also frequently asking about aspects of their social life while parents/carers commonly asked about sleep. HCPs varied in how able they felt to adequately support families about these topics, as well as in their views about which resources could be most useful. Having insufficient time and a lack of suitable services and resources to refer to, or draw upon, were key barriers to HCPs being able to support CYP and their families., Discussion: Findings highlight the broad array of topics CYP with epilepsy and their families are reported as seeking support for. HCPs identified gaps in services and their abilities to meet those needs. There appeared to be a mismatch between the support that families were seeking and the ability of HCPs to meet these needs. Findings have implications for how HCPs could best be supported to deal with topics raised by CYP and families in clinic, highlighting the potential usefulness of informational resources on key topics for HCPs, parents/carers and CYP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT) to support the use of Fibrin Sealants (FS) in neck dissection (ND) are lacking. The DEFeND trial assessed critical pilot/feasibility questions and signals from clinical outcomes to inform a future definitive trial., Patients and Methods: The study design piloted was a blinded surgical RCT. All participants underwent unilateral ND for head and neck cancer. Interventional arm: ND with application of FS., Control Arm: ND alone. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, effectiveness of blinding, protocol adherence and evaluating administrative processes. Clinical outcomes included surgical complications (primary outcome), drainage volume, time to drain removal, length of hospital stay, pain and the Neck Dissection Impairment Index., Results: Recruitment completed ahead of time. Fifty-three patients were recruited, and 48 were randomised at a rate of 5.3 patients/month. Blinding of patients, research nurses and outcome assessors was effective. Two protocol deviations occurred. Two patients were lost to follow-up. The mean (SD) Comprehensive Complication Index in the interventional arm was 6.5 (12.8), and it was 9.9 (14.2) in the control arm. The median (IQR) time to drain removal (days) was shorter in the interventional arm (2.67 (2.42, 3.58) vs. 3.40 (2.50, 4.27)). However, this did not translate to a clinically significant reduction in median (IQR) length of hospital stay in days (intervention: 3.48 (2.64, 4.54), control: 3.74 (3.11, 4.62))., Conclusion: The proposed trial design was effective, and a definitive surgical trial is feasible. Whilst there was a tendency for FS to improve clinical outcomes, the effect size did not reach clinical or statistical significance. (ISRCTN99181100).

Background: Prenatal exposure to certain anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations (MCM). The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking ASMs throughout pregnancy and, therefore, information on the potential risks associated with ASM treatment is required., Objectives: To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to ASMs on the prevalence of MCM in the child., Search Methods: For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 17 February 2022: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to February 16, 2022), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), and ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). No language restrictions were imposed., Selection Criteria: We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries, randomised controlled trials and epidemiological studies using routine health record data. Participants were women with epilepsy taking ASMs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and untreated women with epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Five authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Eight authors completed data extraction and/or risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of an MCM. Secondary outcomes included specific types of MCM. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively., Main Results: From 12,296 abstracts, we reviewed 283 full-text publications which identified 49 studies with 128 publications between them. Data from ASM-exposed pregnancies were more numerous for prospective cohort studies (n = 17,963), than data currently available for epidemiological health record studies (n = 7913). The MCM risk for children of women without epilepsy was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5 to 3.0) in cohort studies and 3.3% (95% CI 1.5 to 7.1) in health record studies. The known risk associated with sodium valproate exposure was clear across comparisons with a pooled prevalence of 9.8% (95% CI 8.1 to 11.9) from cohort data and 9.7% (95% CI 7.1 to 13.4) from routine health record studies. This was elevated across almost all comparisons to other monotherapy ASMs, with the absolute risk differences ranging from 5% to 9%. Multiple studies found that the MCM risk is dose-dependent. Children exposed to carbamazepine had an increased MCM prevalence in both cohort studies (4.7%, 95% CI 3.7 to 5.9) and routine health record studies (4.0%, 95% CI 2.9 to 5.4) which was significantly higher than that for the children born to women without epilepsy for both cohort (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.59) and routine health record studies (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.64); with similar significant results in comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy for both cohort studies (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.96) and routine health record studies (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.83). For phenobarbital exposure, the prevalence was 6.3% (95% CI 4.8 to 8.3) and 8.8% (95% CI 0.0 to 9277.0) from cohort and routine health record data, respectively. This increased risk was significant in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy (RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.84 to 5.65) and those born to women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.83) in cohort studies; data from routine health record studies was limited. For phenytoin exposure, the prevalence of MCM was elevated for cohort study data (5.4%, 95% CI 3.6 to 8.1) and routine health record data (6.8%, 95% CI 0.1 to 701.2). The prevalence of MCM was higher for phenytoin-exposed children in comparison to children of women without epilepsy (RR 3.81, 95% CI 1.91 to 7.57) and the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 2.01. 95% CI 1.29 to 3.12); there were no data from routine health record studies. Pooled data from cohort studies indicated a significantly increased MCM risk for children exposed to lamotrigine in comparison to children born to women without epilepsy (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.39); with a risk difference (RD) indicating a 1% increased risk of MCM (RD 0.01. 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). This was not replicated in the comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63), which contained the largest group of lamotrigine-exposed children (> 2700). Further, a non-significant difference was also found both in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.64) and children born to women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28) from routine data studies. For levetiracetam exposure, pooled data provided similar risk ratios to women without epilepsy in cohort (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.93) and routine health record studies (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.66). This was supported by the pooled results from both cohort (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28) and routine health record studies (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.71) when comparisons were made to the offspring of women with untreated epilepsy. For topiramate, the prevalence of MCM was 3.9% (95% CI 2.3 to 6.5) from cohort study data and 4.1% (0.0 to 27,050.1) from routine health record studies. Risk ratios were significantly higher for children exposed to topiramate in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy in cohort studies (RR 4.07, 95% CI 1.64 to 10.14) but not in a smaller comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.27); few data are currently available from routine health record studies. Exposure in utero to topiramate was also associated with significantly higher RRs in comparison to other ASMs for oro-facial clefts. Data for all other ASMs were extremely limited. Given the observational designs, all studies were at high risk of certain biases, but the biases observed across primary data collection studies and secondary use of routine health records were different and were, in part, complementary. Biases were balanced across the ASMs investigated, and it is unlikely that the differential results observed across the ASMs are solely explained by these biases., Authors' Conclusions: Exposure in the womb to certain ASMs was associated with an increased risk of certain MCMs which, for many, is dose-dependent., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Introduction: Sleep and epilepsy have an established bidirectional relationship yet only one randomised controlled clinical trial has assessed the effectiveness of behavioural sleep interventions for children with epilepsy. The intervention was successful, but was delivered via face-to-face educational sessions with parents, which are costly and non-scalable to population level. The Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E trial addresses this problem by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness in children with Rolandic epilepsy between standard care (SC) and SC augmented with a novel, tailored parent-led CASTLE Online Sleep Intervention (COSI) that incorporates evidence-based behavioural components., Methods and Analyses: CASTLE Sleep-E is a UK-based, multicentre, open-label, active concurrent control, randomised, parallel-group, pragmatic superiority trial. A total of 110 children with Rolandic epilepsy will be recruited in outpatient clinics and allocated 1:1 to SC or SC augmented with COSI (SC+COSI). Primary clinical outcome is parent-reported sleep problem score (Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire). Primary health economic outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, Child Health Utility 9D Instrument). Parents and children (≥7 years) can opt into qualitative interviews and activities to share their experiences and perceptions of trial participation and managing sleep with Rolandic epilepsy., Ethics and Dissemination: The CASTLE Sleep-E protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority East Midlands (HRA)-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/EM/0205). Trial results will be disseminated to scientific audiences, families, professional groups, managers, commissioners and policymakers. Pseudo-anonymised individual patient data will be made available after dissemination on reasonable request., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13202325., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Context: The use of scrotal ultrasonography (SUS) has increased the detection rate of indeterminate testicular masses. Defining radiological characteristics that identify malignancy may reduce the number of men undergoing unnecessary radical orchidectomy., Objective: To define which SUS or scrotal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics can predict benign or malignant disease in pre- or post-pubertal males with indeterminate testicular masses., Evidence Acquisition: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration guidance. Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials and systematic reviews databases were searched from (1970 to 26 March 2021). Benign and malignant masses were classified using the reported reference test: i.e., histopathology, or 12 months progression-free radiological surveillance. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool (QUADAS-2)., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 32 studies were identified, including 1692 masses of which 28 studies and 1550 masses reported SUS features, four studies and 142 masses reported MRI features. Meta-analysis of different SUS (B-mode) values in post-pubertal men demonstrated that a size of ≤0.5 cm had a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) of malignancy compared to masses of >0.5 cm (P < 0.001). Comparison of masses of 0.6-1.0 cm and masses of >1.5 cm also demonstrated a significantly lower OR of malignancy (P = 0.04). There was no significant difference between masses of 0.6-1.0 and 1.1-1.5 cm. SUS in post-pubertal men also had a statistically significantly lower OR of malignancy for heterogenous masses vs homogenous masses (P = 0.04), hyperechogenic vs hypoechogenic masses (P < 0.01), normal vs increased enhancement (P < 0.01), and peripheral vs central vascularity (P < 0.01), respectively. There were limited data on pre-pubertal SUS, pre-pubertal MRI and post-pubertal MRI., Conclusions: This meta-analysis identifies radiological characteristics that have a lower OR of malignancy and may be of value in the management of the indeterminate testis mass., (© 2022 BJU International.)

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)., Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD., Results: We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03)., Conclusions: Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015023511., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Purpose: This position paper makes recommendations following an audit of care provided to people presenting with a seizure to emergency departments (EDs) in Europe., Methods: Participating countries were asked to include five hospitals agreeing to identify 50 consecutive seizure patients presenting to their ED between 1 August 2016 and 31 August 2017. Anonymous data were collected to a web database. Where quoted, percentages are mean site values and ranges are the 10th-90th centile., Results: Data were collected on 2204 ED visits (47 sites, up to six per country, across 15 countries): 1270 (58%) known epilepsy, 299 (14%) previous blackouts but no epilepsy diagnosis, 634 (29%) with a first seizure. Wide variability was identified for most variables. Of those with known epilepsy, 41.2% (range 26.2%-59.6%) attended the ED in the previous 12 months, but only 64.7% (range 37.2%-79.8%) had seen an epilepsy specialist in the previous 12 months. 67.7% (range 34.0%-100%) were admitted, 53.1% to a neurology ward (range 0.0%-88.9%). Only 37.5% first seizure patients (range 0.0%-71.4%) were given advice about driving., Conclusions and Recommendations: It is recommended that in Europe guidance is agreed on the management and onward referral of those presenting to the ED with a seizure; a referral process is created that can be easily implemented; it is ensured that the seizure services receive referrals and see the patients within a short time period; and a simple system is developed and implemented to allow continuous monitoring of key indices of epilepsy care., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but published studies often lack information on neurological outcomes and prognostic risk factors. We aimed to describe the spectrum of neurological disease in hospitalised COVID-19 patients; characterise clinical outcomes; and investigate factors associated with a poor outcome., Methods: We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe disability or death, 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin Scale) using multivariable models., Results: We included 83 studies (31 unpublished) providing IPD for 1979 patients with COVID-19 and acute new-onset neurological disease. Encephalopathy (978 [49%] patients) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]) were the most common diagnoses. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients; one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67-82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42-65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35-41]) overall, and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% [27-32]. The hazard of death was comparatively lower for patients in the WHO European region., Interpretation: Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources from prolonged intensive care and inpatient admission; preliminary data suggest these may differ according to WHO regions and country income levels. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission., Competing Interests: TS is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of a study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a candidate Ebola Vaccine in children - the GSK3390107A (ChAd3 EBO-Z) vaccine; he is a panel member of Covid-19 Vaccine Benefit Risk Expert Working Group for the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (UK); he is a member of COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel for the UK Department of Health & Social Care; he is the Chair/Co-Chair of the COVID-19 Rapid Response and Rolling Funding Initiatives, which supported the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine. In addition, Dr. Solomon has a diagnostic test for bacterial meningitis, based on a blood test, filed for patent pending.

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD)., Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016., Participants: 80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients., Interventions: Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis)., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events., Results: Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective., Conclusions: The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015023507., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices., Objectives: To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events., Main Results: IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: levetiracetam 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and levetiracetam was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or levetiracetam in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), levetiracetam 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, levetiracetam, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies., Authors' Conclusions: High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug levetiracetam, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of bed rest, cervical cerclage (McDonald, Shirodkar, or unspecified type of cerclage), cervical pessary, fish oils or omega fatty acids, nutritional supplements (zinc), progesterone (intramuscular, oral, or vaginal), prophylactic antibiotics, prophylactic tocolytics, combinations of interventions, placebo or no treatment (control) to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length., Design: Systematic review with bayesian network meta-analysis., Data Sources: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Database of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, relevant journals, conference proceedings, and registries of ongoing trials., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomised controlled trials of pregnant women who are at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. No language or date restrictions were applied., Outcomes: Seven maternal outcomes and 11 fetal outcomes were analysed in line with published core outcomes for preterm birth research. Relative treatment effects (odds ratios and 95% credible intervals) and certainty of evidence are presented for outcomes of preterm birth <34 weeks and perinatal death., Results: Sixty one trials (17 273 pregnant women) contributed data for the analysis of at least one outcome. For preterm birth <34 weeks (40 trials, 13 310 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was associated with fewer women with preterm birth <34 weeks (odds ratio 0.50, 95% credible interval 0.34 to 0.70, high certainty of evidence). Shirodkar cerclage showed the largest effect size (0.06, 0.00 to 0.84), but the certainty of evidence was low. 17OHPC (17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate; 0.68, 0.43 to 1.02, moderate certainty), vaginal pessary (0.65, 0.39 to 1.08, moderate certainty), and fish oil or omega 3 (0.30, 0.06 to 1.23, moderate certainty) might also reduce preterm birth <34 weeks compared with placebo or no treatment. For the fetal outcome of perinatal death (30 trials, 12 119 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was the only treatment that showed clear evidence of benefit for this outcome (0.66, 0.44 to 0.97, moderate certainty). 17OHPC (0.78, 0.50 to 1.21, moderate certainty), McDonald cerclage (0.59, 0.33 to 1.03, moderate certainty), and unspecified cerclage (0.77, 0.53 to 1.11, moderate certainty) might reduce perinatal death rates, but credible intervals could not exclude the possibility of harm. Only progesterone treatments are associated with reduction in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with controls., Conclusion: Vaginal progesterone should be considered the preventative treatment of choice for women with singleton pregnancy identified to be at risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. Future randomised controlled trials should use vaginal progesterone as a comparator to identify better treatments or combination treatments., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020169006., Competing Interests: Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. However, members of the team involved in this study (AC, NM) were employed as part of a grant from Wellbeing of Women charity to establish the Harris Wellbeing Research Centre. Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from Wellbeing of Women charity for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We aimed to describe pre-existing factors associated with severe disease, primarily admission to critical care, and death secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised children and young people (CYP), within a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis., Methods: We searched Pubmed, European PMC, Medline and Embase for case series and cohort studies published between 1st January 2020 and 21st May 2021 which included all CYP admitted to hospital with ≥ 30 CYP with SARS-CoV-2 or ≥ 5 CYP with PIMS-TS or MIS-C. Eligible studies contained (1) details of age, sex, ethnicity or co-morbidities, and (2) an outcome which included admission to critical care, mechanical invasive ventilation, cardiovascular support, or death. Studies reporting outcomes in more restricted groupings of co-morbidities were eligible for narrative review. We used random effects meta-analyses for aggregate study-level data and multilevel mixed effect models for IPD data to examine risk factors (age, sex, comorbidities) associated with admission to critical care and death. Data shown are odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).PROSPERO: CRD42021235338., Findings: 83 studies were included, 57 (21,549 patients) in the meta-analysis (of which 22 provided IPD) and 26 in the narrative synthesis. Most studies had an element of bias in their design or reporting. Sex was not associated with critical care or death. Compared with CYP aged 1-4 years (reference group), infants (aged <1 year) had increased odds of admission to critical care (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.40-1.90)) and death (OR 2.08 (1.57-2.86)). Odds of death were increased amongst CYP over 10 years (10-14 years OR 2.15 (1.54-2.98); >14 years OR 2.15 (1.61-2.88)).The number of comorbid conditions was associated with increased odds of admission to critical care and death for COVID-19 in a step-wise fashion. Compared with CYP without comorbidity, odds ratios for critical care admission were: 1.49 (1.45-1.53) for 1 comorbidity; 2.58 (2.41-2.75) for 2 comorbidities; 2.97 (2.04-4.32) for ≥3 comorbidities. Corresponding odds ratios for death were: 2.15 (1.98-2.34) for 1 comorbidity; 4.63 (4.54-4.74) for 2 comorbidities and 4.98 (3.78-6.65) for ≥3 comorbidities. Odds of admission to critical care were increased for all co-morbidities apart from asthma (0.92 (0.91-0.94)) and malignancy (0.85 (0.17-4.21)) with an increased odds of death in all co-morbidities considered apart from asthma. Neurological and cardiac comorbidities were associated with the greatest increase in odds of severe disease or death. Obesity increased the odds of severe disease and death independently of other comorbidities. IPD analysis demonstrated that, compared to children without co-morbidity, the risk difference of admission to critical care was increased in those with 1 comorbidity by 3.61% (1.87-5.36); 2 comorbidities by 9.26% (4.87-13.65); ≥3 comorbidities 10.83% (4.39-17.28), and for death: 1 comorbidity 1.50% (0.00-3.10); 2 comorbidities 4.40% (-0.10-8.80) and ≥3 co-morbidities 4.70 (0.50-8.90)., Interpretation: Hospitalised CYP at greatest vulnerability of severe disease or death with SARS-CoV-2 infection are infants, teenagers, those with cardiac or neurological conditions, or 2 or more comorbid conditions, and those who are obese. These groups should be considered higher priority for vaccination and for protective shielding when appropriate. Whilst odds ratios were high, the absolute increase in risk for most comorbidities was small compared to children without underlying conditions., Funding: RH is in receipt of a fellowship from Kidney Research UK (grant no. TF&#95;010&#95;20171124). JW is in receipt of a Medical Research Council Fellowship (Grant No. MR/R00160X/1). LF is in receipt of funding from Martin House Children's Hospice (there is no specific grant number for this). RV is in receipt of a grant from the National Institute of Health Research to support this work (grant no NIHR202322). Funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript., Competing Interests: KL is the Programme Lead for the National Child Mortality Database. SK is the National Clinical Director for Children and Young People, NHS England and Improvement. ED is the Co-Principle Investigator for the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: Test anxiety has a detrimental effect on test performance but current interventions for test anxiety have limited efficacy. Therefore, examination of newer psychological models of test anxiety is now required. Two transdiagnostic psychological models of emotional disorders that can account for anxiety are the intolerance of uncertainty model (IUM) and the Self-Regulatory Executive Function (S-REF) model. Intolerance of uncertainty, the stable disposition to find uncertainty distressing, is central to the IUM, while beliefs about thinking, metacognition, are central to the S-REF model. We tested for the first time the role of both intolerance of uncertainty and metacognitive beliefs in test anxiety., Methods: A cross-sectional design was used, with college students (n = 675) completing questionnaires assessing their test anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, and metacognitive beliefs. Hierarchical linear regressions examined if intolerance of uncertainty and metacognitive beliefs were associated with test anxiety, after controlling for age and gender., Results: Females reported significantly more test anxiety than males. Partial correlations, controlling for gender, found intolerance of uncertainty and metacognitive beliefs were significantly and positively correlated with test anxiety. Hierarchical linear regressions found metacognitive beliefs explained an additional 13% of variance in test anxiety, after controlling for intolerance of uncertainty. When the order of entry was reversed, intolerance of uncertainty was only able to explain an additional 2% of variance, after controlling for metacognitive beliefs. In the final regression model, gender, intolerance of uncertainty and the metacognitive belief domains of 'negative beliefs about the uncontrollability and danger of worry' and 'cognitive confidence' were all significantly associated test anxiety, with 'negative beliefs about the uncontrollability and danger of worry' having the largest association., Conclusions: Both intolerance of uncertainty and metacognitive beliefs are linked to test anxiety, but results suggest metacognitive beliefs have more explanatory utility, providing greater support for the S-REF model. Modification of intolerance of uncertainty and metacognitive beliefs could alleviate test anxiety and help students fulfil their academic potential., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This chapter provides a broad overview of the use of individual participant (sometimes referred to as patient) data (IPD ) within meta-analyses, the associated advantages of using IPD in meta-analysis compared to aggregate data, and when IPD should be used in meta-analysis.This chapter also outlines the steps of conducting an IPD meta-analysis, with practical guidance relating to requesting and obtaining IPD for meta-analysis. Challenges that can be associated with conducting an IPD meta-analysis are also discussed, including consideration of availability bias, when a subset of the relevant IPD is not available for meta-analysis., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Levetiracetam (Keppra ® , UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran ® , Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal ® , GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim ® , Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy., Design: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel., Setting: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK., Participants: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication., Interventions: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Results: Focal epilepsy . A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy . Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective., Limitations: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions., Future Work: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel., Conclusions: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction: The National Audit of Seizure Management in Hospitals (NASH) identified low referral rates to neurology and epilepsy services after an emergency department attendance or admission with a seizure., Methods: National Health Service Secondary Users Service (SUS) data were used to assess the impact of a seizure pathway at seven hospitals in Cheshire & Merseyside, which was implemented in 2014. Three of these hospitals also had a nurse employed part-time to support the pathway. Patients admitted with a seizure between 2011 and 2018 inclusive were identified using an algorithm based on ICD-10 codes, and the primary outcome was a neurology referral within 3 months of admission. Regression models were used to assess the impact of age, deprivation and comorbidity on post admission clinic referral rates., Results: 13,285 admissions with seizure were included in the analysis. 5,677 had not attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. The percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 16.0% before the pathway and 35.9% with the nurse-supported pathway, which was significant in the regression model. 4,700 admissions had attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. Of this group, the percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 55.2% before the pathway and 62.4% with the nurse-supported pathway, an increase that was not significant in the regression model. The regression models identified significant health inequalities whereby older patients, those with comorbidities and those living in deprived areas were significantly less likely to be referred., Conclusion: Neurology out-patient appointment rates following an admission with seizures are low, worryingly so for those with no neurology appointment in the previous 12 months. A nurse-supported pathway can improve appointment rates, but the effect is modest. Further service redesign is required; the impact of which should be rigorously evaluated., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: Cyclophosphamide (CYC) is used in clinical practice off-label for the induction of remission in childhood polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) might offer a less toxic alternative. This study was undertaken to explore the relative effectiveness of CYC and MMF treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT)., Methods: This was an international, open-label, Bayesian RCT to investigate the relative effectiveness of CYC and MMF for remission induction in childhood PAN. Eleven patients with newly diagnosed childhood PAN were randomized (1:1) to receive MMF or intravenous CYC; all patients received the same glucocorticoid regimen. The primary end point was remission within 6 months while compliant with glucocorticoid taper. Bayesian distributions for remission rates were established a priori for MMF and CYC by experienced clinicians and updated to posterior distributions on trial completion., Results: Baseline disease activity and features were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The primary end point was met in 4 of 6 patients (67%) in the MMF group and 4 of 5 patients (80%) in the CYC group. Time to remission was shorter in the MMF group compared to the CYC group (median 7.1 weeks versus 17.6 weeks). No relapses occurred in either group within 18 months. Two serious infections were found to be likely linked to MMF treatment. Physical and psychosocial quality-of-life scores were superior in the MMF group compared to the CYC group at 6 months and 18 months. Combining the prior expert opinion with results from the present study provided posterior estimates of remission of 71% for MMF (90% credibility interval [90% CrI] 51, 83) and 75% for CYC (90% CrI 57, 86)., Conclusion: The present results, taken together with prior opinion, indicate that rates of remission induction in childhood PAN are similar with MMF treatment and CYC treatment, and MMF treatment might be associated with better health-related quality of life than CYC treatment., (© 2021 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: Aggregate data meta-analyses have shown heterogeneous treatment effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. This heterogeneity could stem from specific intervention or patient characteristics that could influence the clinical effectiveness of CBT, termed treatment effect modifiers. This individual participant data meta-analysis will investigate a range of potential treatment effect modifiers of the efficacy of CBT., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating CBT versus treatment as usual, or CBT versus other psychosocial interventions, for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE and the online clinical trials registers of the US government, European Union, WHO and Current Controlled Trials will be searched. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts identified by the search. Individual participant data will be requested for any eligible study, for the primary outcome (overall psychotic symptoms), secondary outcomes and treatment effect modifiers. Data will be checked and recoded according to an established statistical analysis plan. One-stage and two-stage random effects meta-analyses investigating potential treatment effect modifiers will be conducted. A list of potential treatment effect modifiers for CBT will be produced, motivating future research into particular modifiers., Ethics and Dissemination: This study does not require ethical approval as it is based on data from existing studies, although best ethical practice for secondary analysis of clinical data will be followed. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and promoted to relevant stakeholders., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017060068., Competing Interests: Competing interests: We recognise that one member of our team may be regarded as having a vested interest in CBT (AM is the only coapplicant actively involved in CBT training, leading of trial grants and receiving royalties from CBT texts or books)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy., Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64)., Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs., Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AM reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from UCB Pharma, outside of the submitted work. JPL reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from UCB Pharma; and personal fees from Eisai, Janssen CIlag Pharmaceuticals, GW Pharmaceuticals, GSK Pharma, outside of the submitted work. GS reports personal fees from UCB Pharma, Eisai, Arvelle Therapeutics GmbH, outside of the submitted work. CP reports grants from National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of this study. CT reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study. DH reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of the study. RM reports personal fees from UCB Pharma and grants from UCB Pharma and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. PES is a member of the NICE Panel for Epilepsy guideline 2021 and is an editor of the journal Practical Neurology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy., Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64)., Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years., Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AM reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from UCB Pharma, outside of the submitted work. JPL reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from UCB Pharma; and personal fees from Eisai, Janssen CIlag Pharmaceuticals, GW Pharmaceuticals, GSK Pharma, outside of the submitted work. GS reports personal fees from UCB Pharma, Eisai, Arvelle Therapeutics GmbH, outside of the submitted work. CP reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of this study. CT reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study. DH reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of the study. RM reports personal fees from UCB Pharma and grants from UCB Pharma and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. PES is a member of the NICE Panel for Epilepsy guideline 2021 and is an editor of the journal Practical Neurology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Asthma affects millions of children worldwide-1.1 million children in the UK. Asthma symptoms cannot be cured but can be controlled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in the majority of individuals. Treatment with a low-dose ICS, however, fails to control asthma symptoms in around 10%-15% of children and this places the individual at increased risk for an asthma attack. At present, there is no clear preferred treatment option for a child whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose ICS and international guidelines currently recommend at least three treatment options. Herein, we propose a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis (IPD-NMA) aiming to synthesise all available published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to establish the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma on ICS and help to make evidence-informed treatment choices. This will be used to parameterise a Markov-based economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment options in order to inform decisions in the context of drug formularies and clinical guidelines., Methods and Analysis: We will search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, NICE Technology Appraisals and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment series for RCTs of interventions in patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS. All studies where children and adolescents were eligible for inclusion will be considered, and authors or sponsors will be contacted to request IPD on patients aged <18. The reference lists of existing clinical guidelines, along with included studies and relevant reviews, will be checked to identify further relevant studies. Unpublished studies will be located by searching across a range of clinical trial registries, including internal trial registers for pharmaceutical companies. All studies will be appraised for inclusion against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. We will perform an IPD-NMA-eventually supplemented with aggregate data for the RCTs without IPD-to establish both the probability that a treatment is best and the probability that a particular treatment is most likely to be effective for a specific profile of the patient. The IPD-NMA will be performed for each outcome variable within a Bayesian framework, using the WinBUGS software. Also, potential patient-level characteristics that may modify treatment effects will be explored, which represents one of the strengths of this study., Ethics and Dissemination: The Committee on Research Ethics, University of Liverpool, has confirmed that ethics review is not required. The dissemination plan consists of publishing the results in an open-access medical journal, a plain-language summary available for parents and children, dissemination via local, national and international meetings and conferences and the press offices of our Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). A synopsis of results will be disseminated to NICE and British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) as highly relevant to future clinical guideline updates., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019127599., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Mapping the current body of evidence including what is missing helps provide a better understanding of what research is available, ongoing and needed and should be prioritised. Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research by providing additional context information about the body of evidence in a given topic area. Despite the commonly used term 'research gap' in scientific literature, little is written on how to find a 'research gap' in the first place. Moreover, there is no clear methodological guidance to identify and display gaps., Objective: This study aimed to explore how key stakeholders define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to further advance efforts in this area., Design: This was an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis., Results: Among the 20 interviews conducted (20 participants), a variety of research gap definitions were expressed (ie, five main themes, including gaps in information, knowledge/evidence gaps, uncertainties, quality and patient perspective). We identified three main themes for methods used to identify gaps (primary, secondary and both primary and secondary) and finally six main themes for the methods to display gaps (forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics)., Conclusion: This study provides insights into issues related to defining research gaps and methods used to identify and display gaps in health research from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the process. Findings will be used to inform methodological guidance on identifying research gaps., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide., Methods and Analysis: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement., Trial Registration Numbers: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Previous meta-analyses conclude that psychological treatments are efficacious for emotional distress in breast cancer (BCa). However, the practical relevance of these meta-analyses is questionable; none focused specifically on clinically distressed patients or whether treatment effects were clinically significant. In a two-stage individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials of manualized psychological treatments in BCa, we evaluated treatment efficacy in distressed BCa patients (n = 1591) using clinical significance and effect size analyses. Outcomes were anxiety, depression, and general distress, evaluated at post-treatment and follow-up. Moderators examined were treatment type, treatment format, therapists' profession, control condition, age, outcome measure, and trial quality. Treated patients were more likely than controls to recover from anxiety and general distress at post-treatment (14-15% more treated patients recovered), but not at mean 8-months follow-up. Overall recovery rates were low: across outcomes, at post-treatment, only 30-32% of treated patients and 15-25% of controls recovered; at follow-up, only 21-30% of treated patients and 18-35% of controls recovered. Small between-group effect sizes in favour of treatment were found across outcomes at post-treatment (g = 0.32-0.34) but not at follow-up. Across the different analysis methods, few moderator effects were found. More efficacious psychological treatments are needed for distressed BCa patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2008 and updated in 2013. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects up to 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have focal epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in drug-resistant epilepsy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of vigabatrin as an add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Search Methods: For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 1 November 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 31 October 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) are both included in the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web). We checked reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted Hoechst Marion Roussel (manufacturers of vigabatrin) in 2000., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). We evaluated: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, dose-response analysis, cognitive outcomes and quality of life. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: We identified 11 trials that included 756 participants (age range: 10 to 64 years). The trials tested vigabatrin doses between 1 g/day and 6 g/day. All 11 trials displayed a risk of bias across at least three risk of bias domains. Predominantly, the risk of bias was associated with: allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Participants treated with vigabatrin may be two to three times more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.63; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Those treated with vigabatrin may also be three times more likely to have treatment withdrawn although we are uncertain (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.55; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, participants given vigabatrin were more likely to experience adverse effects: dizziness/light-headedness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), fatigue (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.51; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), drowsiness (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.44; 8 studies) and depression (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.30 to 8.27; 6 studies). Although the incidence rates were higher among participants receiving vigabatrin compared to those receiving placebo, the effect was not significant for the following adverse effects: ataxia (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.96 to 7.94; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.63 to 20.30; 4 studies), abnormal vision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.02; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), headache (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.92; 9 studies), diplopia (RR 1.76, 99% CI 0.94 to 3.30) and nystagmus (RR 1.53, 99% CI 0.62 to 3.76; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Vigabatrin had little to no effect on cognitive outcomes or quality of life., Authors' Conclusions: Vigabatrin may significantly reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results largely apply to adults and should not be extrapolated to children under 10 years old. Short-term follow-up of participants showed that some adverse effects were associated with its use. Analysis of longer-term observational studies elsewhere, however, has demonstrated that vigabatrin use can lead to the development of visual field defects., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Dementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in dementia pathogenesis. Therefore, medications with anti-inflammatory properties could be beneficial for dementia prevention., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group up to 9 January 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP) and six other databases to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies., Selection Criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing aspirin or other NSAIDs with placebo for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. We included trials with cognitively healthy participants (primary prevention) or participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitive complaints (secondary prevention)., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the strength of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included four RCTs with 23,187 participants. Because of the diversity of these trials, we did not combine data to give summary estimates, but presented a narrative description of the evidence. We identified one trial (19,114 participants) comparing low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily) to placebo. Participants were aged 70 years or older with no history of dementia, cardiovascular disease or physical disability. Interim analysis indicated no significant treatment effect and the trial was terminated slightly early after a median of 4.7 years' follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dementia between aspirin and placebo groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; high-certainty evidence). Participants allocated aspirin had higher rates of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60, high-certainty evidence) and slightly higher mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in activities of daily living between groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence). We identified three trials comparing non-aspirin NSAIDs to placebo. All three trials were terminated early due to adverse events associated with NSAIDs reported in other trials. One trial (2528 participants) investigated the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) and the non-selective NSAID naproxen (220 mg twice daily) for preventing dementia in cognitively healthy older adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Median follow-up was 734 days. Combining both NSAID treatment arms, there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of AD between participants allocated NSAIDs and those allocated placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.10; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in rates of myocardial infarction (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.40), stroke (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.37) or mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.43) between treatment groups (all moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (88 participants) assessed the effectiveness of celecoxib (200 mg or 400 mg daily) in delaying cognitive decline in participants aged 40 to 81 years with mild age-related memory loss but normal memory performance scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.6 months in the celecoxib group and 18.1 months in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in test scores in any of six cognitive domains. Participants allocated celecoxib experienced more gastrointestinal adverse events than those allocated placebo (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.75; low-certainty evidence). One trial (1457 participants) assessed the effectiveness of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in delaying or preventing a diagnosis of AD in participants with MCI. Median duration of study participation was 115 weeks in the rofecoxib group and 130 weeks in the placebo group. There was a higher incidence of AD in the rofecoxib than the placebo group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.72; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants allocated rofecoxib had more upper gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.68; moderate-certainty evidence). Reported annual mean difference scores showed no evidence of a difference between groups in activities of daily living (year 1: no data available; year 2: 0.0, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.2; year 3: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.3; year 4: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.4; moderate-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence to support the use of low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs of any class (celecoxib, rofecoxib or naproxen) for the prevention of dementia, but there was evidence of harm. Although there were limitations in the available evidence, it seems unlikely that there is any need for further trials of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, they will need to be cognisant of the safety concerns arising from the existing studies., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To determine the feasibility and optimal design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Seizure First Aid Training For Epilepsy (SAFE)., Design: Pilot RCT with embedded microcosting., Setting: Three English hospital emergency departments (EDs)., Participants: Patients aged ≥16 with established epilepsy reporting ≥2 ED visits in the prior 12 months and their significant others (SOs)., Interventions: Patients (and their SOs) were randomly allocated (1:1) to SAFE plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) or TAU alone. SAFE is a 4-hour group course., Main Outcome Measures: Two criteria evaluated a definitive RCT's feasibility: (1) ≥20% of eligible patients needed to be consented into the pilot trial; (2) routine data on use of ED over the 12 months postrandomisation needed securing for ≥75%. Other measures included eligibility, ease of obtaining routine data, availability of self-report ED data and comparability, SAFE's effect and intervention cost., Results: Of ED attendees with a suspected seizure, 424 (10.6%) patients were eligible; 53 (12.5%) patients and 38 SOs consented. Fifty-one patients (and 37 SOs) were randomised. Routine data on ED use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% patients. Self-report ED data were available for 66.7% patients. Patients reported more visits compared with routine data. Most (76.9%) patients randomised to SAFE received it and no related serious adverse events occurred. ED use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE+TAU arm compared with TAU alone, but not significantly (rate ratio=0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.17). A definitive trial would need ~674 patient participants and ~39 recruitment sites. Obtaining routine data was challenging, taking ~8.5 months., Conclusions: In satisfying only one predetermined 'stop/go' criterion, a definitive RCT is not feasible. The low consent rate in the pilot trial raises concerns about a definitive trial's finding's external validity and means it would be expensive to conduct. Research is required into how to optimise recruitment from the target population., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13871327., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Many randomized trials evaluate an intervention effect on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data (IPD) from such trials can be obtained and combined in a so-called IPD meta-analysis (IPD-MA), to summarize the overall intervention effect. We performed a narrative literature review to provide an overview of methods for conducting an IPD-MA of randomized intervention studies with a time-to-event outcome. We focused on identifying good methodological practice for modeling frailty of trial participants across trials, modeling heterogeneity of intervention effects, choosing appropriate association measures, dealing with (trial differences in) censoring and follow-up times, and addressing time-varying intervention effects and effect modification (interactions).We discuss how to achieve this using parametric and semi-parametric methods, and describe how to implement these in a one-stage or two-stage IPD-MA framework. We recommend exploring heterogeneity of the effect(s) through interaction and non-linear effects. Random effects should be applied to account for residual heterogeneity of the intervention effect. We provide further recommendations, many of which specific to IPD-MA of time-to-event data from randomized trials examining an intervention effect.We illustrate several key methods in a real IPD-MA, where IPD of 1225 participants from 5 randomized clinical trials were combined to compare the effects of Carbamazepine and Valproate on the incidence of epileptic seizures., (© 2019 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: We conducted a feasibility study to investigate the use of ketogenic diets (KDs) as an adjuvant therapy for patients with glioblastoma (GBM), investigating (i) trial feasibility; (ii) potential impacts of the trial on patients' quality of life and health; (iii) patients' perspectives of their decision-making when invited to participate in the trial and (iv) recommending improvements to optimize future phase III trials., Methods: A single-center, prospective, randomized, pilot study (KEATING), with an embedded qualitative design. Twelve newly diagnosed patients with GBM were randomized 1:1 to modified ketogenic diet (MKD) or medium chain triglyceride ketogenic diet (MCTKD). Primary outcome was retention at three months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients and caregivers (n = 15). Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative outcomes and qualitative data were analyzed thematically aided by NVivo., Results: KEATING achieved recruitment targets, but the recruitment rate was low (28.6%). Retention was poor; only four of 12 patients completed the three-month diet (MCTKD n = 3; MKD n = 1). Participants' decisions were intuitive and emotional; caregivers supported diet implementation and influenced the patients' decision to participate. Those who declined made a deliberative and considered decision factoring diet burden and quality of life. A three-month diet was undesirable to patients who declined and withdrew., Conclusion: Recruitment to a KD trial for patients with GBM is possible. A six-week intervention period is proposed for a phase III trial. The role of caregivers should not be underestimated. Future trials should optimize and adequately support the decision-making of patients.

Background: Prognostic models for repeated events of the same type are highly useful in predicting when a patient may have a recurrence of a chronic disease or illness. Whilst methods are currently available for analysing recurrent event data in prognostic models, to our knowledge, most are not widely known or applied in a medical setting. As a result, often only the first recurrence is analysed meaning valuable information for multiple recurrences is discarded. Therefore, the aim of this review is to systemically review models for repeated medical events of the same type, to determine what modelling techniques are available and how they are applied., Methods: MEDLINE will be used as the primary method to search sources. Various databases from the Cochrane Library and EMBASE will also be searched. Trial registries such as Clinicaltrials.gov.uk will be searched, as will registered trials that are ongoing and not yet published. Abstracts submitted to conferences will also be searched, and non-English sources will also be considered. Studies to be included in the review will be decided based on PICO guidelines, where the study population and outcomes correspond to this study's aims and target population. The prognostic models used in each study chosen for inclusion in the review will be summarised qualitatively., Discussion: As recurrent event data is not widely analysed in prognostic models, the results from this systematic review will identify which methods are available and which are commonly used. It is also unknown if certain methods which will be identified in the review perform better given certain conditions. Therefore, if included studies assess predictive performance, the results of this review could also provide evidence to determine if certain models are better fitting dependant on the event rate of the chronic condition. The results will be used to determine if model selection varies across disease area. The review will also provide an insight into the development of any new methods used for analysing recurrent events., Trial Registration: The review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019116031)., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Introduction: Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research, practice and policies by informing the current body of evidence. Audiences including researchers, clinical guideline developers, clinicians, policymakers, research regulatory bodies, funders and patients/the public can also benefit from understanding the status of research and research gaps to make informed choices. This study aims to explore how key informants define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to inform future research practice and policies., Methods and Analysis: This is an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The participants will be recruited by purposive sampling from initiatives and organisations previously identified in a scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. We anticipate performing up to 28 interviews with the different key informant groups who are involved in using evidence to inform health policy, practice and research. Interviews will be thematically analysed as outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data-analysis software NVivo V.12 Pro will be used to aid data management and analysis., Discussion: This is the protocol for a follow-up study that aims to complement and enrich the findings of the scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. The overall project aims to develop methodological guidance for describing, identifying and displaying gaps in health research., Ethics and Dissemination: The research obtained ethical approval from the University of Liverpool, UK. The findings will be disseminated via conferences, meetings (organised by the Methods in Research on Research project), peer-reviewed publications and lay magazines because the study participants will include the public/patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission., Authors' Conclusions: Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment, due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 13 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset (tonic-clonic) seizures., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1102 eligible individuals, from four out of 11 trials (i.e. 54% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Most participants included in analysis (78%) were classified as experiencing focal onset seizures at baseline and only 22% were classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures; the results of this review are therefore mainly applicable to individuals with focal onset seizures.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, moderate-certainty evidence); both showing no clear difference between the drugs and time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86, moderate-certainty evidence), showing that treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on carbamazepine than phenytoin, but we cannot rule out a slight advantage to carbamazepine or no difference between the drugs.For our secondary outcomes (pooled HRs adjusted for seizure type), we did not find any clear differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin: time to first seizure post-randomisation (582 participants): 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.40, moderate-certainty evidence); time to 12-month remission (551 participants): 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); and time to six-month remission (551 participants): 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, moderate-certainty evidence).For all outcomes, results for individuals with focal onset seizures were similar to overall results (moderate-certainty evidence), and results for the small subgroup of individuals with generalised onset seizures were imprecise, so we cannot rule out an advantage to either drug, or no difference between drugs (low-certainty evidence). There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to treatment failure'. Heterogeneity was present in analysis of 'time to first seizure' for individuals with generalised onset seizures, which could not be explained by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analyses.Limited information was available about adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash)., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence provided by this systematic review does not show any differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin in terms of effectiveness (retention) or efficacy (seizure recurrence and seizure remission) for individuals with focal onset or generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies, which may have had an impact on the results of this review. We therefore do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a person with newly-onset seizures. We did not find any evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We implore that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible, with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance and should be based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments for an individual.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with topiramate compared with carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 22 May 2018. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results for the primary outcome, time to treatment failure, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type were: time to failure for any reason related to treatment 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38); time to failure due to adverse events 1.02 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.27); and time to failure due to lack of efficacy 1.46 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.98). Overall results for secondary outcomes were time to first seizure 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.29); and time to six-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 81% of individuals included within the analysis experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with focal onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to failure for any reason related to treatment (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.02), and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference between topiramate and carbamazepine for 'time to first seizure' and 'time to six-month remission'.Evidence for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (9% of participants contributing to the analysis), and unclassified seizure types (10% of participants contributing to the analysis) was very limited; no statistically significant differences were found but CIs were wide; therefore we cannot exclude an advantage to either drug, or a difference between drugs.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, "pins and needles" (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the treatment failure rate within the trial. Hence, we judged the certainty of the evidence for treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the certainty of evidence from this review to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset or unclassified seizures., Authors' Conclusions: For individuals with focal onset seizures, there is moderate-certainty evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and high-certainty evidence that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. We did not find any differences between the drugs in terms of the other outcomes measured in the review and for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of results including small numbers of participants with these seizure types.Future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background and Objectives: Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research., Methods: A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative., Results: Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research., Conclusion: This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in intervention trials aims to improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsies. The aim of this study was to select a COS to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy (RE)., Methods: We followed guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. First, we identified outcomes that had been measured in research through a systematic review. Second, young people with RE, parents, and professionals were invited to take part in a Delphi survey in which participants rated the importance of candidate outcomes. Last, a face-to-face meeting was convened to seek consensus on which outcomes were critical to include and to ratify the final COS., Results: From 37 eligible papers in the review, we identified and included 48 candidate outcomes in the survey. We sent invitations to 165 people registered to take part in the survey; of these, 102 (62%) completed Round 1, and 80 (78%) completed Round 2 (three young people, 16 parents, 61 professionals). In Round 2 we included four additional outcomes suggested by participants in Round 1. The consensus meeting included two young people, four parents, and nine professionals who were eligible to vote and ratified the COS as 39 outcomes across 10 domains., Significance: Our methodology was a proportionate and pragmatic approach toward producing a COS for evaluating research on interventions aiming to improve the health of children with RE., (© 2019 The Authors. Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

Background: Patient selection for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and duration of anti-epileptic drug treatment for patients with early post-traumatic seizures (PTS), remain plagued with uncertainty. In early 2017, a collaborative group of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neurointensive care and rehabilitation medicine physicians was formed in the UK with the aim of assessing variability in current practice and gauging the degree of uncertainty to inform the design of future studies. Here we present the results of a survey of clinicians managing patients with TBI in the UK and Ireland., Materials and Methods: An online survey was developed and piloted. Following approval by the Academic Committee of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, it was distributed via appropriate electronic mailing lists., Results: One hundred and seventeen respondents answered the questionnaire, predominantly neurosurgeons (76%) from 30 (of 32) trauma-receiving hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Fifty-three percent of respondents do not routinely use seizure prophylaxis, but 38% prescribe prophylaxis for one week. Sixty percent feel there is uncertainty regarding the use of seizure prophylaxis, and 71% would participate in further research to address this question. Sixty-two percent of respondents use levetiracetam for treatment of seizures during the acute phase, and 42% continued for a total of 3 months. Overall, 90% were uncertain about the duration of treatment for seizures, and 78% would participate in further research to address this question., Conclusion: The survey results demonstrate the variation in practice and uncertainty in both described aspects of management of patients who have suffered a TBI. The majority of respondents would want to participate in future research to help try and address this critical issue, and this shows the importance and relevance of these two clinical questions.

Background: Joint modeling of longitudinal and time-to-event data is often advantageous over separate longitudinal or time-to-event analyses as it can account for study dropout, error in longitudinally measured covariates, and correlation between longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes. The current literature on joint modeling focuses mainly on the analysis of single studies with a lack of methods available for the meta-analysis of joint data from multiple studies., Methods: We investigate a variety of one-stage methods for the meta-analysis of joint longitudinal and time-to-event outcome data. These methods are applied to the INDANA dataset to investigate longitudinally measured systolic blood pressure, with each of time to death, time to myocardial infarction, and time to stroke. Results are compared to separate longitudinal or time-to-event meta-analyses. A simulation study is conducted to contrast separate versus joint analyses over a range of scenarios., Results: The performance of the examined one-stage joint meta-analytic models varied. Models that accounted for between study heterogeneity performed better than models that ignored it. Of the examined methods to account for between study heterogeneity, under the examined association structure, fixed effect approaches appeared preferable, whereas methods involving a baseline hazard stratified by study were least time intensive., Conclusions: One-stage joint meta-analytic models that accounted for between study heterogeneity using a mix of fixed effects or a stratified baseline hazard were reliable; however, models examined that included study level random effects in the association structure were less reliable., (© 2018 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 24 May 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenobarbitone in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: We included 13 trials in this review and IPD were available for 836 individuals out of 1455 eligible individuals from six trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 676 participants: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 619 participants: 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97, low-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 487 participants: 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, moderate-quality evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 822 participants: 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38, moderate-quality evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.09, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40, low-quality evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).Results of these secondary outcomes suggest that there may be an association between treatment effect in terms of efficacy and seizure type; that is, that participants with focal onset seizures experience seizure recurrence later and hence remission of seizures earlier on phenobarbitone than carbamazepine, and vice versa for individuals with generalised seizures. It is likely that the analyses of these outcomes were confounded by several methodological issues and misclassification of seizure type, which could have introduced the heterogeneity and bias into the results of this review.Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash), and behavioural side effects in three paediatric trials., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence from this review suggests that carbamazepine is likely to be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate- to low-quality evidence from this review also suggests an association between treatment efficacy and seizure type in terms of seizure recurrence and seizure remission, with an advantage for phenobarbitone for focal onset seizures and an advantage for carbamazepine for generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.