Search

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published 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, phenytoin is a commonly used antiepileptic drug. It is important to know how newer drugs, such as oxcarbazepine, compare with commonly used standard treatments., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with oxcarbazepine compared to phenytoin, when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the following databases on 20 August 2018: 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, 1946 to 20 August 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either oxcarbazepine 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 and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month and 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: Individual participant data were available for 480 out of a total of 517 participants (93%), from two out of three included trials. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for oxcarbazepine.The results for time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment showed a potential advantage of oxcarbazepine over phenytoin, but this was not statistically significant (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 0.78 95% CI 0.53 to 1.14, 476 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence). Our analysis showed that treatment failure due to adverse events occurred later on with oxcarbazepine than phenytoin (pooled HR for all participants: 0.22 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.51, 480 participants, two trials, high-quality evidence). Our analysis of time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy showed no clear difference between the drugs (pooled HR for all participants: 1.17 (95% CI 0.31 to 4.35), 480 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence).We found no clear or statistically significant differences between drugs for any of the secondary outcomes of the review: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 0.97 95% CI 0.75 to 1.26, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence); time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type 1.04 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 1.06 95% CI 0.82 to 1.36, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence).The most common adverse events reported in more than 10% of participants on either drug were somnolence (28% of total participants, with similar rates for both drugs), headache (15% of total participants, with similar rates for both drugs), dizziness (14.5% of total participants, reported by slightly more participants on phenytoin (18%) than oxcarbazepine (11%)) and gum hyperplasia (reported by substantially more participants on phenytoin (18%) than oxcarbazepine (2%)).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 70% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. The two studies included in IPD meta-analysis were generally of good methodological quality but the design of the studies may have biased the results for the secondary outcomes (time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month and 12-month remission) as seizure recurrence data were not collected following treatment failure or withdrawal from the study. In addition, misclassification of epilepsy type may have impacted on results, particularly for individuals with generalised onset seizures., Authors' Conclusions: High-quality evidence provided by this review indicates that treatment failure due to adverse events occurs significantly later with oxcarbazepine than phenytoin. For individuals with focal onset seizures, moderate-quality evidence suggests that oxcarbazepine may be superior to phenytoin in terms of treatment failure for any reason, seizure recurrence and seizure remission. Therefore, oxcarbazepine may be a preferable alternative treatment than phenytoin, particularly for individuals with focal onset seizures. The evidence in this review which relates to individuals with generalised onset seizures is of low quality and does not inform current treatment policy.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with regards to choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up (including continued follow-up after failure or withdrawal of randomised treatment), choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: 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 to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, sodium valproate and phenytoin are commonly used antiepileptic drugs for monotherapy treatment. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for focal onset seizures, and that sodium pvalproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001, and updated in 2013 and 2016., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of sodium valproate compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP on 19 February 2018. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either sodium valproate 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 and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, and 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 11 trials in this review and IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to focal onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for sodium valproate.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.27; 5 studies; 528 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37; 4 studies; 418 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants 1.16 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 5 studies; 451 participants; moderate-quality evidence). These results suggest that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on phenytoin compared to sodium valproate, while treatment failure due to lack of efficacy may occur earlier on sodium valproate than phenytoin; however none of these results were statistically significant.Results for time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; 5 studies; 639 participants; low-quality evidence) suggest that first seizure recurrence may occur slightly earlier on sodium valproate compared to phenytoin. There were no clear differences between drugs in terms of time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 4 studies; 514 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; 5 studies; 639 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not make comparisons between the rates of adverse events on sodium valproate and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported with both drugs were drowsiness, rash, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal problems. Weight gain was also reported with sodium valproate and gingival hypertrophy/hyperplasia was reported on phenytoin.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however four out of the five trials providing IPD for analysis were of an open-label design, therefore all results were at risk of detection bias. There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to first seizure' and heterogeneity was present in analysis of treatment failure outcomes which could not be explained by subgroup analysis by epilepsy type or by sensitivity analysis for misclassification of seizure type. Therefore, for treatment failure outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate to low, for 'time to first seizure' we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, and for remission outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between valproate and phenytoin for any of the outcomes examined in this review. However detection bias, classification bias and heterogeneity may have impacted on the results of this review. We did not find any outright evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We recommend 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 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.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 to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to 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: We conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine 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 and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-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 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.Time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of 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 quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. 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: Meta-regression results must be interpreted taking into account the range of covariate values of the contributing studies. Results based on interpolation or extrapolation may be unreliable. In network meta-regression (NMR) models, which include covariates in network meta-analyses, results are estimated using direct and indirect evidence; therefore, it may be unclear which studies and covariate values contribute to which result. We propose graphs to help understand which trials and covariate values contribute to each NMR result and to highlight extrapolation or interpolation., Methods: We introduce methods to calculate the contribution that each trial and covariate value makes to each result and compare them with existing methods. We show how to construct graphs including a network covariate distribution diagram, covariate-contribution plot, heat plot, contribution-NMR plot, and heat-NMR plot. We demonstrate the methods using a dataset with treatments for malaria using the covariate average age and a dataset of topical fluoride interventions for preventing dental caries using the covariate randomisation year., Results: For the malaria dataset, no contributing trials had an average age between 7-25 years and therefore results were interpolated within this range. For the fluoride dataset, there are no contributing trials randomised between 1954-1959 for most comparisons therefore, within this range, results would be extrapolated., Conclusions: Even in a fully connected network, an NMR result may be estimated from trials with a narrower covariate range than the range of the whole dataset. Calculating contributions and graphically displaying them aids interpretation of NMR result by highlighting extrapolated or interpolated results., (© 2018 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

There is an increasing interest in the use of the ketogenic diet (KD) as an adjuvant therapy for glioma patients. We assessed the tolerability and feasibility of a modified ketogenic diet (MKD) in patients with glioma, along with willingness of patients to participate in future randomized controlled trials. The study was undertaken in two parts; a patient questionnaire and evaluation of the diet. One hundred and seventy-two questionnaires were completed; 69% (n = 119) of the population reported MKD should be offered to patients with glioma and 73% (n = 125) would be willing to try MKD for 3 months. Six male patients with high grade gliomas tried the diet; 4 completed the 3-month feasibility period. Ketosis was achieved in all patients. The only gastrointestinal side effect was constipation (n = 2). Minimal changes were observed in weight, body mass index, fat mass and cholesterol profiles. MKD was well tolerated, with few side effects and is deliverable within a financially viable, NHS service. There is a high level of interest in the diet within the glioma patient community to ensure adequate recruitment for a clinical trial. Further studies are required to demonstrate efficacy and patient benefit before implementing a service.

Objective: Meta-analyses of trials of psychological treatments for emotional distress in breast cancer (BCa) conclude that efficacious treatments exist. Subsequently, their implementation in routine care is widely promoted by health policy. However, the methodological quality of these trials has not been systematically evaluated. The present review investigates this issue., Method: A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of psychological treatments for emotional distress in BCa. The Psychotherapy Outcome Study Methodology Rating Form was used to assess the quality of trials. Generic design elements, including representativeness of sample, control of concomitant treatments, reporting clinical significance outcomes, and design elements specific to psychotherapy trials, including manualisation, therapist training, and therapist adherence and competence were evaluated., Results: 91 trials were eligible. Overall, methodological quality was low. Generic design elements were limited in most trials: 15% specified as an inclusion criterion that participants were distressed; 10% controlled for concomitant treatments; and 11% reported the clinical significance of findings. Design elements specific to psychotherapy trials were also implemented poorly: 51% used treatment manuals; 8% used certified trained therapists; and monitoring of adherence and competence occurred in 15% and 4%, respectively., Conclusion: The methodological quality of psychological treatment trials for emotional distress in BCa is improving. However, if relevant health policies are to be adequately empirically informed, trials of greater methodological rigour are essential. Trials should include participants with clinical levels of distress, control for concomitant treatments and report the clinical significance of findings. Trialists must also consider the specific requirements of psychotherapy trials., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data is often preferred 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 joint modelling literature focuses mainly on the analysis of single studies with no methods currently available for the meta-analysis of joint model estimates from multiple studies., Methods: We propose a 2-stage method for meta-analysis of joint model estimates. These methods are applied to the INDANA dataset to combine joint model estimates of systolic blood pressure with time to death, time to myocardial infarction, and time to stroke. Results are compared to meta-analyses of separate longitudinal or time-to-event models. A simulation study is conducted to contrast separate versus joint analyses over a range of scenarios., Results: Using the real dataset, similar results were obtained by using the separate and joint analyses. However, the simulation study indicated a benefit of use of joint rather than separate methods in a meta-analytic setting where association exists between the longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes., Conclusions: Where evidence of association between longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes exists, results from joint models over standalone analyses should be pooled in 2-stage meta-analyses., (© 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors reported that reference 15 (Cella et al.) had been incorrectly replaced with a duplicate of Brombin et al. during publication.

Aim: We performed a systematic review of the evidence for effectiveness and acceptability of different ketogenic diets (KDs) in the therapeutic management of gliomas., Methods: The search strategy included searches of seven electronic databases. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken independently by two authors., Results: No randomized clinical trials were identified. Six studies (n = 39) met the eligibility criteria for this review - all were case series or reports and therefore at high risk of bias. All studies reported overall or progression-free survival; however the effectiveness of KD interventions could not be established. Dietary acceptability was not reported., Conclusion: The effectiveness and acceptability of KDs in the management of gliomas is unknown and high quality randomized controlled trials are needed.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate a training intervention for recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly for those anticipated to be difficult for recruitment., Study Design and Setting: One of three training workshops was offered to surgeons and one to research nurses. Self-confidence in recruitment was measured through questionnaires before and up to 3 months after training; perceived impact of training on practice was assessed after. Data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests and supplemented with findings from the content analysis of free-text comments., Results: Sixty-seven surgeons and 32 nurses attended. Self-confidence scores for all 10 questions increased after training [range of mean scores before 5.1-6.9 and after 6.9-8.2 (scale 0-10, all 95% confidence intervals are above 0 and all P-values <0.05)]. Awareness of hidden challenges of recruitment following training was high-surgeons' mean score 8.8 [standard deviation (SD), 1.2] and nurses' 8.4 (SD, 1.3) (scale 0-10); 50% (19/38) of surgeons and 40% (10/25) of nurses reported on a 4-point Likert scale that training had made "a lot" of difference to their RCT discussions. Analysis of free text revealed this was mostly in relation to how to convey equipoise, explain randomization, and manage treatment preferences., Conclusion: Surgeons and research nurses reported increased self-confidence in discussing RCTs with patients, a raised awareness of hidden challenges and a positive impact on recruitment practice following QuinteT RCT Recruitment Training. Training will be made more available and evaluated in relation to recruitment rates and informed consent., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To develop prognostic models for risk of a breakthrough seizure, risk of seizure recurrence after a breakthrough seizure, and likelihood of achieving 12-month remission following a breakthrough seizure. A breakthrough seizure is one that occurs following at least 12 months remission whilst on treatment., Methods: We analysed data from the SANAD study. This long-term randomised trial compared treatments for participants with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Multivariable Cox models investigated how clinical factors affect the probability of each outcome. Best fitting multivariable models were produced with variable reduction by Akaike's Information Criterion. Risks associated with combinations of risk factors were calculated from each multivariable model., Results: Significant factors in the multivariable model for risk of a breakthrough seizure following 12-month remission were number of tonic-clonic seizures by achievement of 12-month remission, time taken to achieve 12-month remission, and neurological insult. Significant factors in the model for risk of seizure recurrence following a breakthrough seizure were total number of drugs attempted to achieve 12-month remission, time to achieve 12-month remission prior to breakthrough seizure, and breakthrough seizure treatment decision. Significant factors in the model for likelihood of achieving 12-month remission after a breakthrough seizure were gender, age at breakthrough seizure, time to achieve 12-month remission prior to breakthrough, and breakthrough seizure treatment decision., Conclusions: This is the first analysis to consider risk of a breakthrough seizure and subsequent outcomes. The described models can be used to identify people most likely to have a breakthrough seizure, a seizure recurrence following a breakthrough seizure, and to achieve 12-month remission following a breakthrough seizure. The results suggest that focussing on achieving 12-month remission swiftly represents the best therapeutic aim to reduce the risk of a breakthrough seizure and subsequent negative outcomes. This will aid individual patient risk stratification and the design of future epilepsy trials.

Background: 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 partial 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 withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus)., Search Methods: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial 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 and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events., Main Results: IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 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.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Objectives: We examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach., Design and Methods: This was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European., Outcome: We developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials., Results: The task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata., Conclusions: The adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TG is the editor-in-chief of BMJ Open, the journal that publishes this article. During the paper evaluation she recused herself from the peer review and decision-making process. BB reports various unrestricted gifts (see) supporting travel and effort; grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation during the conduct of the study; and non-financial support from Vivli, outside the submitted work. RK reports she was Founder of CDISC and President during the development of the submitted work. DaS was employed by BioMed Central at the time of the consensus process., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Many reviews aim to compare numerous treatments and report results stratified by subgroups (eg, by disease severity). In such cases, a network meta-analysis model including treatment by covariate interactions can estimate the relative effects of all treatment pairings for each subgroup of patients. Two key assumptions underlie such models: consistency of treatment effects and consistency of the regression coefficients for the interactions. Consistency may differ depending on the covariate value at which consistency is assessed. For valid inference, we need to be confident of consistency for the relevant range of covariate values. In this paper, we demonstrate how to assess consistency of treatment effects from direct and indirect evidence at various covariate values., Methods: Consistency is assessed using visual inspection, inconsistency estimates, and probabilities. The method is applied to an individual patient dataset comparing artemisinin combination therapies for treating uncomplicated malaria in children using the covariate age., Results: The magnitude of the inconsistency appears to be decreasing with increasing age for each comparison. For one comparison, direct and indirect evidence differ for age 1 (P = .05), and this brings results for age 1 for all comparisons into question., Conclusion: When fitting models including interactions, the consistency of direct and indirect evidence must be assessed across the range of covariates included in the trials. Clinical inferences are only valid for covariate values for which results are consistent., (© 2017 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Glioblastoma is the commonest form of malignant brain tumour in adults, affecting 2-3 people per 100,000 per year. Despite current treatment options including surgical resection, radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy, overall survival at 2 years is approximately 27%, with a median survival of 12-14 months. The ketogenic diet (KD) is postulated to work by simulating the metabolic response to fasting by promoting the utilisation of ketones as a primary energy source, and depriving the glycolytic pathways utilised by malignant glioma cells for growth. At present, there is no consensus as to which KD is preferable, with previous case series using different KDs, at different points in the treatment pathway. The aim of this randomised pilot study is to investigate protocol feasibility, tolerability and the impact on patient health and quality of life of two different KDs within an NHS setting. The results of this pilot study will inform which KD will be most deliverable and adhered to by patients in order to test for effectiveness in future trials., Methods: A prospective, non-blinded, randomised, pilot study will be undertaken in 12 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated by surgical resection. Patients will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1, using a permuted block randomisation method to one of two diets; the modified ketogenic diet and the medium chain triglyceride ketogenic diet. Primary data collection will take place 12 weeks after starting the diet and secondary data collection after 12 months. Feasibility will be assessed by retention and recruitment rates, ability to enrol patients prior to starting chemoradiotherapy, dietary compliance and adjustments, ketone levels, glucose levels and intervention time. Patient impact will be assessed through quality of life and food acceptability questionnaires, gastrointestinal side effects and changes to biochemical markers and anthropometric measures, assessed at regular intervals., Discussion: The results of this pilot study will be used to inform the feasibility, methodological design and power calculations of future phase III clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of KD as an adjuvant therapy in the management of glioblastoma., Trial Registration: ISRCTN71665562 and NCT03075514.

Background: There is increasing recognition that establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in trials of interventions for particular conditions will improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set for childhood epilepsy. The aim of this work is to select a core outcome set to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy, as an exemplar of common childhood epilepsy syndromes., Methods: First we will identify what outcomes should be measured; then we will decide how to measure those outcomes. We will engage relevant UK charities and health professional societies as partners, and convene advisory panels for young people with epilepsy and parents of children with epilepsy. We will identify candidate outcomes from a search for trials of interventions for childhood epilepsy, statutory guidance and consultation with our advisory panels. Families, charities and health, education and neuropsychology professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi survey following recommended practices in the development of core outcome sets. Participants will be able to recommend additional outcome domains. Over three rounds of Delphi survey participants will rate the importance of candidate outcome domains and state the rationale for their decisions. Over the three rounds we will seek consensus across and between families and health professionals on the more important outcomes. A face-to-face meeting will be convened to ratify the core outcome set. We will then review and recommend ways to measure the shortlisted outcomes using clinical assessment and/or patient-reported outcome measures., Discussion: Our methodology is a proportionate and pragmatic approach to expediently produce a core outcome set for evaluative research of interventions aiming to improve the health of children with epilepsy. A number of decisions have to be made when designing a study to develop a core outcome set including defining the scope, choosing which stakeholders to engage, most effective ways to elicit their views, especially children and a potential role for qualitative research.

Purpose: The ketogenic diet (KD) has been proven to be effective in children with refractory epilepsy and is recommended by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). There is no randomised control trial (RCT) evidence for the clinical or cost effectiveness of KD in adults, for whom the KD is not currently recommended. We assessed the feasibility of the modified ketogenic diet (MKD) in adults with refractory epilepsy along with the willingness of patients to participate in a future RCT., Methods: The service evaluation was undertaken in two parts; questionnaire and diet evaluation., Results: 102 patients completed a questionnaire, of which 51 patients were willing to try the MKD for 3 months to assess effect on seizures. Forty three patients were willing to participate in a clinical trial to investigate deliverability, efficacy and tolerability. Thirty seven of which would still be willing to participate if the trial were randomised. Of the 17 patients who commenced the diet, 9 completed the 12 week period, 7 of which stayed on the diet for the longer term. Constipation (n=6) and loose stools (n=3) were the only reported adverse effects., Conclusion: Our results indicate that there is demand for a ketogenic diet service in adults. The MKD is well tolerated, feasible and financially viable to deliver to adults with epilepsy in the NHS. There is also interest in and willingness to participate in a UK based RCT that would ultimately inform decisions about commissioning appropriate services., (Copyright © 2017 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Demands are increasingly being made for clinical trialists to actively share individual participant data (IPD) collected from clinical trials using responsible methods that protect the confidentiality and privacy of clinical trial participants. Clinical trialists, particularly those receiving public funding, are often concerned about the additional time and money that data-sharing activities will require, but few published empirical data are available to help inform these decisions. We sought to evaluate the activity and resources required to prepare anonymised IPD from a clinical trial in anticipation of a future data-sharing request., Methods: Data from two UK publicly funded clinical trials were used for this exercise: 2437 participants with epilepsy recruited from 90 hospital outpatient clinics in the SANAD trial and 146 children with neuro-developmental problems recruited from 18 hospitals in the MENDS trial. We calculated the time and resources required to prepare each anonymised dataset and assemble a data pack ready for sharing., Results: The older SANAD trial (published 2007) required 50 hours of staff time with a total estimated associated cost of £3185 whilst the more recently completed MENDS trial (published 2012) required 39.5 hours of staff time with total estimated associated cost of £2540., Conclusions: Clinical trial researchers, funders and sponsors should consider appropriate resourcing and allow reasonable time for preparing IPD ready for subsequent sharing. This process would be most efficient if prospectively built into the standard operational design and conduct of a clinical trial. Further empirical examples exploring the resource requirements in other settings is recommended., Trial Registration: SANAD: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN38354748 . Registered on 25 April 2003., Mends: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudract 2006-004025-28 . Registered on 16 May 2007. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN05534585 /MREC 07/MRE08/43. Registered on 26 January 2007.

Background: Clinical trials are typically designed using the classical frequentist framework to constrain type I and II error rates. Sample sizes required in such designs typically range from hundreds to thousands of patients which can be challenging for rare diseases. It has been shown that rare disease trials have smaller sample sizes than non-rare disease trials. Indeed some orphan drugs were approved by the European Medicines Agency based on studies with as few as 12 patients. However, some studies supporting marketing authorisation included several hundred patients. In this work, we explore the relationship between disease prevalence and other factors and the size of interventional phase 2 and 3 rare disease trials conducted in the US and/or EU. We downloaded all clinical trials from Aggregate Analysis of ClinialTrials.gov (AACT) and identified rare disease trials by cross-referencing MeSH terms in AACT with the list from Orphadata. We examined the effects of prevalence and phase of study in a multiple linear regression model adjusting for other statistically significant trial characteristics., Results: Of 186941 ClinicalTrials.gov trials only 1567 (0.8%) studied a single rare condition with prevalence information from Orphadata. There were 19 (1.2%) trials studying disease with prevalence <1/1,000,000, 126 (8.0%) trials with 1-9/1,000,000, 791 (50.5%) trials with 1-9/100,000 and 631 (40.3%) trials with 1-5/10,000. Of the 1567 trials, 1160 (74%) were phase 2 trials. The fitted mean sample size for the rarest disease (prevalence <1/1,000,000) in phase 2 trials was the lowest (mean, 15.7; 95% CI, 8.7-28.1) but were similar across all the other prevalence classes; mean, 26.2 (16.1-42.6), 33.8 (22.1-51.7) and 35.6 (23.3-54.3) for prevalence 1-9/1,000,000, 1-9/100,000 and 1-5/10,000, respectively. Fitted mean size of phase 3 trials of rarer diseases, <1/1,000,000 (19.2, 6.9-53.2) and 1-9/1,000,000 (33.1, 18.6-58.9), were similar to those in phase 2 but were statistically significant lower than the slightly less rare diseases, 1-9/100,000 (75.3, 48.2-117.6) and 1-5/10,000 (77.7, 49.6-121.8), trials., Conclusions: We found that prevalence was associated with the size of phase 3 trials with trials of rarer diseases noticeably smaller than the less rare diseases trials where phase 3 rarer disease (prevalence <1/100,000) trials were more similar in size to those for phase 2 but were larger than those for phase 2 in the less rare disease (prevalence ≥1/100,000) trials.

Stratified medicine utilizes individual-level covariates that are associated with a differential treatment effect, also known as treatment-covariate interactions. When multiple trials are available, meta-analysis is used to help detect true treatment-covariate interactions by combining their data. Meta-regression of trial-level information is prone to low power and ecological bias, and therefore, individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses are preferable to examine interactions utilizing individual-level information. However, one-stage IPD models are often wrongly specified, such that interactions are based on amalgamating within- and across-trial information. We compare, through simulations and an applied example, fixed-effect and random-effects models for a one-stage IPD meta-analysis of time-to-event data where the goal is to estimate a treatment-covariate interaction. We show that it is crucial to centre patient-level covariates by their mean value in each trial, in order to separate out within-trial and across-trial information. Otherwise, bias and coverage of interaction estimates may be adversely affected, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions driven by ecological bias. We revisit an IPD meta-analysis of five epilepsy trials and examine age as a treatment effect modifier. The interaction is -0.011 (95% CI: -0.019 to -0.003; p = 0.004), and thus highly significant, when amalgamating within-trial and across-trial information. However, when separating within-trial from across-trial information, the interaction is -0.007 (95% CI: -0.019 to 0.005; p = 0.22), and thus its magnitude and statistical significance are greatly reduced. We recommend that meta-analysts should only use within-trial information to examine individual predictors of treatment effect and that one-stage IPD models should separate within-trial from across-trial information to avoid ecological bias. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (© 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent updates in 2010 and 2015.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. 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 partial 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, although the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Differences in efficacy may therefore be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure with carbamazepine compared to phenytoin, used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures), or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types., Search Methods: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (1st November 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1st November 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 November 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 1st November 2016). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (1823 to 16th September 2014) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures, comparing carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This is an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. The methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39; three trials, 546 participants); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31; three trials, 551 participants); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.37; three trials, 551 participants); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; four trials, 582 participants). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96; two trials, 118 participants); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02). However, misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as a first-line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects, compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence for a statistically significant difference between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, but CIs are wide and we cannot exclude the possibility of important differences. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that people with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than from carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon our results. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that our results alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible, with considerations of allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. 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 partial 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 studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial 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 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: 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 antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AED for an individual is based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments. It is also important to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types.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 assess the effects of topiramate monotherapy versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy in people with partial-onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (14 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 14 April 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial-onset seizures or generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types with a comparison of monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to first seizure post randomisation', 'time to 6-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), and used the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HRs and 95% CIs., 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 withdrawal outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type (95% CI) were: for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.16 (0.98 to 1.38); time to first seizure 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29); and time to 6-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 (0.71 to 1.00).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial-onset seizures; 85% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with partial-onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.45) and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). No statistically significant differences were apparent between the drugs for other outcomes and for the limited number of individuals with generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types or unclassified seizures.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 withdrawal rate from the trial. Hence, we judged the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial-onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised-onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the evidence from this review to be high for individuals with partial-onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised-onset or unclassified seizures., Authors' Conclusions: For individuals with partial-onset seizures, there is evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. No differences were found between the drugs in terms of the outcomes measured in the review for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other seizure types or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of these results due to the small numbers of participants with these seizure types.We recommend that 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: Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data are commonly used to simultaneously analyse correlated data in single study cases. Synthesis of evidence from multiple studies using meta-analysis is a natural next step but its feasibility depends heavily on the standard of reporting of joint models in the medical literature. During this review we aim to assess the current standard of reporting of joint models applied in the literature, and to determine whether current reporting standards would allow or hinder future aggregate data meta-analyses of model results., Methods: We undertook a literature review of non-methodological studies that involved joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event medical data. Study characteristics were extracted and an assessment of whether separate meta-analyses for longitudinal, time-to-event and association parameters were possible was made., Results: The 65 studies identified used a wide range of joint modelling methods in a selection of software. Identified studies concerned a variety of disease areas. The majority of studies reported adequate information to conduct a meta-analysis (67.7% for longitudinal parameter aggregate data meta-analysis, 69.2% for time-to-event parameter aggregate data meta-analysis, 76.9% for association parameter aggregate data meta-analysis). In some cases model structure was difficult to ascertain from the published reports., Conclusions: Whilst extraction of sufficient information to permit meta-analyses was possible in a majority of cases, the standard of reporting of joint models should be maintained and improved. Recommendations for future practice include clear statement of model structure, of values of estimated parameters, of software used and of statistical methods applied.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.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 to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-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 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures., Authors' Conclusions: Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. 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: There is evidence that certain antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are teratogenic and are associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation. The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking AEDs throughout pregnancy; therefore it is important that comprehensive information on the potential risks associated with AED treatment is available., Objectives: To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to AEDs on the prevalence of congenital malformations in the child., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (September 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1974 to September 2015), Pharmline (1978 to September 2015), Reprotox (1983 to September 2015) and conference abstracts (2010-2015) without language restriction., Selection Criteria: We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries and randomised controlled trials. Participants were women with epilepsy taking AEDs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and women with epilepsy who were not taking AEDs during pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: Three authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Five authors completed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of a major congenital malformation. Secondary outcomes included specific types of major congenital malformations. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively., Main Results: We included 50 studies, with 31 contributing to meta-analysis. Study quality varied, and given the observational design, all were at high risk of certain biases. However, biases were balanced across the AEDs investigated and we believe that the results are not explained by these biases.Children exposed to carbamazepine (CBZ) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 1367 vs 2146, risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.36) and women with untreated epilepsy (N = 3058 vs 1287, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.19). Children exposed to phenobarbital (PB) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 345 vs 1591, RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.13). Children exposed to phenytoin (PHT) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 477 vs 987, RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 640 vs 1256, RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.08). Children exposed to topiramate (TPM) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 359 vs 442, RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.07). The children exposed to valproate (VPA) were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 467 vs 1936, RR 5.69, 95% CI 3.33 to 9.73) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 1923 vs 1259, RR 3.13, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.54). There was no increased risk for major malformation for lamotrigine (LTG). Gabapentin (GBP), levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), primidone (PRM) or zonisamide (ZNS) were not associated with an increased risk, however, there were substantially fewer data for these medications.For AED comparisons, children exposed to VPA had the greatest risk of malformation (10.93%, 95% CI 8.91 to 13.13). Children exposed to VPA were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children exposed to CBZ (N = 2529 vs 4549, RR 2.44, 95% CI 2.00 to 2.94), GBP (N = 1814 vs 190, RR 6.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.23), LEV (N = 1814 vs 817, RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.13 to 10.81), LTG (N = 2021 vs 4164, RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.77 to 4.58), TPM (N = 1814 vs 473, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.95), OXC (N = 676 vs 238, RR 3.71, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.33), PB (N = 1137 vs 626, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.29, PHT (N = 2319 vs 1137, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.71) or ZNS (N = 323 vs 90, RR 17.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 277.48). Children exposed to CBZ were at a higher risk of malformation than those exposed to LEV (N = 3051 vs 817, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.29) and children exposed to LTG (N = 3385 vs 4164, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76). Children exposed to PB were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children exposed to GBP (N = 204 vs 159, RR 8.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 50.00), LEV (N = 204 vs 513, RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.00) or LTG (N = 282 vs 1959, RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.88). Children exposed to PHT had a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LTG (N = 624 vs 4082, RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.94) or to LEV (N = 566 vs 817, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.85); however, the comparison to LEV was not significant in the random-effects model. Children exposed to TPM were at a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LEV (N = 473 vs 817, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.85) or LTG (N = 473 vs 3975, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.94). There were no other significant differences, or comparisons were limited to a single study.We found significantly higher rates of specific malformations associating PB exposure with cardiac malformations and VPA exposure with neural tube, cardiac, oro-facial/craniofacial, and skeletal and limb malformations in comparison to other AEDs. Dose of exposure mediated the risk of malformation following VPA exposure; a potential dose-response association for the other AEDs remained less clear., Authors' Conclusions: Exposure in the womb to certain AEDs carried an increased risk of malformation in the foetus and may be associated with specific patterns of malformation. Based on current evidence, LEV and LTG exposure carried the lowest risk of overall malformation; however, data pertaining to specific malformations are lacking. Physicians should discuss both the risks and treatment efficacy with the patient prior to commencing treatment.

Background: Meta-analyses based on individual participant data (IPD-MAs) allow more powerful and uniformly consistent analyses as well as better characterisation of subgroups and outcomes, compared to those which are based on aggregate data (AD-MAs) extracted from published trial reports. However, IPD-MAs are a larger undertaking requiring greater resources than AD-MAs. Researchers have compared results from IPD-MA against results obtained from AD-MA and reported conflicting findings. We present a methodology review to summarise this empirical evidence ., Objectives: To review systematically empirical comparisons of meta-analyses of randomised trials based on IPD with those based on AD extracted from published reports, to evaluate the level of agreement between IPD-MA and AD-MA and whether agreement is affected by differences in type of effect measure, trials and participants included within the IPD-MA and AD-MA, and whether analyses were undertaken to explore the main effect of treatment or a treatment effect modifier., Search Methods: An electronic search of the Cochrane Library (includes Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, CENTRAL, Cochrane Methodology Register, HTA database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database), MEDLINE, and Embase was undertaken up to 7 January 2016. Potentially relevant articles that were known to any of the review authors and reference lists of retrieved articles were also checked., Selection Criteria: Studies reporting an empirical comparison of the results of meta-analyses of randomised trials using IPD with those using AD. Studies were included if sufficient numerical data, comparing IPD-MA and AD-MA, were available in their reports., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened the title and abstract of identified studies with full-text publications retrieved for those identified as eligible or potentially eligible. A 'quality' assessment was done and data were extracted independently by two review authors with disagreements resolved by involving a third author. Data were summarised descriptively for comparisons where an estimate of effect measure and corresponding precision have been provided both for IPD-MA and for AD-MA in the study report. Comparisons have been classified according to whether identical effect measures, identical trials and patients had been used in the IPD-MA and the AD-MA, and whether the analyses were undertaken to explore the main effect of treatment, or to explore a potential treatment effect modifier.Effect measures were transformed to a standardised scale (z scores) and scatter plots generated to allow visual comparisons. For each comparison, we compared the statistical significance (at the 5% two-sided level) of an IPD-MA compared to the corresponding AD-MA and calculated the number of discrepancies. We examined discrepancies by type of analysis (main effect or modifier) and according to whether identical trials, patients and effect measures had been used by the IPD-MA and AD-MA. We calculated the average of differences between IPD-MA and AD-MA (z scores, ratio effect estimates and standard errors (of ratio effects)) and 95% limits of agreement., Main Results: From the 9330 reports found by our searches, 39 studies were eligible for this review with effect estimate and measure of precision extracted for 190 comparisons of IPD-MA and AD-MA. We classified the quality of studies as 'no important flaws' (29 (74%) studies) or 'possibly important flaws' (10 (26%) studies).A median of 4 (interquartile range (IQR): 2 to 6) comparisons were made per study, with 6 (IQR 4 to 11) trials and 1225 (542 to 2641) participants in IPD-MAs and 7 (4 to 11) and 1225 (705 to 2541) for the AD-MAs. One hundred and forty-four (76%) comparisons were made on the main treatment effect meta-analysis and 46 (24%) made using results from analyses to explore treatment effect modifiers.There is agreement in statistical significance between the IPD-MA and AD-MA for 152 (80%) comparisons, 23 of which disagreed in direction of effect. There is disagreement in statistical significance for 38 (20%) comparisons with an excess proportion of IPD-MA detecting a statistically significant result that was not confirmed with AD-MA (28 (15%)), compared with 10 (5%) comparisons with a statistically significant AD-MA that was not confirmed by IPD-MA. This pattern of disagreement is consistent for the 144 main effect analyses but not for the 46 comparisons of treatment effect modifier analyses. Conclusions from some IPD-MA and AD-MA differed even when based on identical trials, participants (but not necessarily identical follow-up) and treatment effect measures. The average difference between IPD-MA and AD-MA in z scores, ratio effect estimates and standard errors is small but limits of agreement are wide and include important differences in both directions. Discrepancies between IPD-MA and AD-MA do not appear to increase as the differences between trials and participants increase., Authors' Conclusions: IPD offers the potential to explore additional, more thorough, and potentially more appropriate analyses compared to those possible with AD. But in many cases, similar results and conclusions can be drawn from IPD-MA and AD-MA. Therefore, before embarking on a resource-intensive IPD-MA, an AD-MA should initially be explored and researchers should carefully consider the potential added benefits of IPD.

Background: Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001 and updated in 2013., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure of phenytoin compared to valproate when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 19 May 2015), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 May 2015), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 May 2015). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment (retention time); (b) achieve 12-month remission (seizure-free period); (c) achieve six-month remission (seizure-free period); and (d) first seizure (post-randomisation). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to partial onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproate.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.55); (b) achieve 12-month remission 0.98 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.23); (c) achieve six-month remission 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.15); and (d) first seizure 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. We did not find any statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised)., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

Objectives: The prevalence and impact of longer-term outcomes following percutaneous tracheostomy, particularly tracheal stenosis, are unclear. Previous meta-analyses addressing this problem have been confounded by the low prevalence of tracheal stenosis and a limited number of studies., Design: Embase, PubMed-Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were searched to identify all prospective studies of tracheostomy insertion in the critically ill. To reflect contemporary practice, the search was limited to studies published from 2000 onward. We scrutinized the bibliographies of returned studies for additional articles. Meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the pooled risk difference of tracheal stenosis, bleeding, and wound infection comparing different techniques., Measurements and Main Results: We identified a total of 463 studies, 29 (5,473 patients) of which met the inclusion criteria. Nine were randomized controlled trials, six were nonrandomized comparative studies, and 14 were single-arm cohort studies. Risk of wound infection was greater for the surgical tracheostomy than for the Ciaglia multiple dilator technique, pooled risk difference 0.12 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23). We did not identify significant risk differences in other meta-analyses. Pooling across all studies according to the random-effects proportion meta-analysis suggests a higher prevalence of tracheal stenosis, wound infection, and major bleeding for surgical tracheostomies., Conclusions: Considering comparative data, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of tracheal stenosis or major bleeding between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy. In relation to wound infection, we have found a reduction associated with the original Ciaglia technique when compared with that with the surgical tracheostomy. Considering all published data reporting long-term outcomes pooled proportion meta-analysis indicates a trend toward a higher rate of tracheal stenosis and an increased risk of major bleeding and wound infection for surgical tracheostomies. This finding may be biased as a result of targeted patient selection, and further, high-quality long-term comparative data are needed to confirm these findings.

Inhibitory control training (ICT) is a novel intervention in which participants learn to associate appetitive cues with inhibition of behaviour. We present a meta-analytic investigation of laboratory studies of ICT for appetitive behaviour change in which we investigate candidate mechanisms of action, individual differences that may moderate its effectiveness, and compare it to other psychological interventions. We conducted random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis on data from 14 articles (18 effect sizes in total). Participants who received ICT chose or consumed significantly less food or alcohol compared to control groups (SMD = 0.36, 95% CIs [0.24, 0.47]; Z = 6.18, p < .001; I(2) = 71%). Effect sizes were larger for motor (Go/No-Go and Stop Signal) compared to oculomotor (Antisaccade) ICT. The effects of ICT on behaviour were comparable to those produced by other psychological interventions, and effects of ICT on food intake were greater in participants who were attempting to restrict their food intake. The magnitude of the effect of ICT on behaviour was predicted by the proportion of successful inhibitions but was unrelated to the absolute number of trials in which appetitive cues were paired with the requirement to inhibit, or the contingency between appetitive cues and the requirement to inhibit. The effect of ICT on cue devaluation (primarily assessed with implicit association tests) was not statistically significant. Our analysis confirms the efficacy of ICT for short-term behaviour change in the laboratory, and we have demonstrated that its effectiveness may depend on pairings between appetitive cues and successful inhibition. We highlight the need for further research to translate these findings outside of the laboratory., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers., Study Design and Setting: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs., Results: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing., Conclusion: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several studies have assessed the effects of food and nonalcoholic beverage (hereafter collectively referred to as food) advertising on food consumption, but the results of these studies have been mixed. This lack of clarity may be impeding policy action., Objective: We examined the evidence for a relation between acute exposure to experimental unhealthy food advertising and food consumption., Design: The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies in which advertising exposure (television or Internet) was experimentally manipulated, and food intake was measured. Five electronic databases were searched for relevant publications (SCOPUS, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Emerald Insight, and JSTOR). An inverse variance meta-analysis was used whereby the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake was calculated between unhealthy food advertising and control conditions., Results: Twenty-two articles were eligible for inclusion. Data were available for 18 articles to be included in the meta-analysis (which provided 20 comparisons). With all available data included, the analysis indicated a small-to-moderate effect size for advertising on food consumption with participants eating more after exposure to food advertising than after control conditions (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.09; 0.65; I(2) = 98%). Subgroup analyses showed that the experiments with adult participants provided no evidence of an effect of advertising on intake (SMD: 0.00; P = 1.00; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.08; I(2) = 8%), but a significant effect of moderate size was shown for children, whereby food advertising exposure was associated with greater food intake (SMD: 0.56; P = 0.003; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.94; I(2) = 98%)., Conclusions: Evidence to date shows that acute exposure to food advertising increases food intake in children but not in adults. These data support public health policy action that seeks to reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food advertising., (© 2016 American Society for Nutrition.)

Objective: Topiramate (TPM) is an antiepileptic drug that is also used for other indications (e.g., migraine). Adverse event (AE) data from epilepsy trials could be supplemented by data from trials in other indications. Combining data across trials and indications is a novel method for evaluating AEs. We conducted a multiple-indications review by systematically reviewing randomized placebo-controlled trials of TPM, to compare the nervous system AEs of TPM in epilepsy with those in other indications., Methods: Randomized placebo-controlled trials of TPM including patients with any indication were included. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2012) and MEDLINE (1966-February 2012). Two authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. For each reported nervous system AE, we extracted event rates, applied random-effects inverse-variance meta-analysis (pooling within-indications then across-indications), and assessed within- and across-indication heterogeneity., Results: Ninety trials, including 16 epilepsy trials, were included. A difference was detected between TPM and placebo for three events (i.e., drooling, dysgeusia, and hypoesthesia) that were not reported in epilepsy trials but were reported by other trials. A difference between TPM and placebo was detected for speech disorder using epilepsy trials but not when combining all trials. For two events (i.e., cognitive disorder and "language problems"), no difference was detected between TPM and placebo when using epilepsy trials alone, but a difference was identified using all trials. A difference was detected between TPM and placebo for six events (i.e., ataxia, disturbance in attention, dizziness, memory impairment, paraesthesia, and somnolence) when using epilepsy trials alone, and using all trials., Significance: Including trials of any indication enabled detection of differences that would have been missed using epilepsy trials alone. Multiple-indications reviews can improve the synthesis of AEs for antiepileptic drugs., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2015 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent update in 2010.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. 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 partial 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, however the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries due to it's low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, however the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Therefore, differences in efficacy may be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (16 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 16 September 2014), SCOPUS (1823 to 16 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (18 September 2014). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to 12-month remission, time to six-month remission and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.37); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02), however misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as first line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low - moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a statistically significant difference exists between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, however, CIs are wide and the possibility of important differences existing has not been excluded. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that participants with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon the results of this review. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations on allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Purpose: Treatment decisions should be informed by high quality evidence of both the potential benefit and harms of treatment alternatives. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence regarding benefits; however information relating to serious, rare and long-term harms is usually available only from non-randomised studies (NRSs). The aim of this study was to use a checklist based on the CONSORT (Consolidating Standards for Reporting Trials) extension for harms recommendations to assess the quality of reporting of harms data in both NRSs and RCTs of antiepileptic drugs, using studies of topiramate as an example., Results: Seventy-eight studies were included from an online search of seven databases. Harms data was extracted from each study using a 25-point checklist. The mean number of items met was 11.5 (SD 2.96) per study. Commercially funded studies met on average 12.7 items and non-commercially funded studies met 10.08 (p value < 0.001). RCTs met on average 13.0 items and NRSs met 10.8 (p = 0.001). Multi-centre studies and commercially funded studies met significantly more items than single centre and non-commercially funded studies respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean number of items met by studies that had included adult vs. child participants, or studies published pre- vs. post-CONSORT extension for harms in 2004., Conclusions: Reporting of harms is significantly better in RCTs than in NRSs of TPM, but is suboptimal overall and has not improved since the publication of CONSORT extension for harms in 2004. There is a need to improve the reporting of harms in order to better inform treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance exists regarding how to apply such analyses but little is known about whether authors follow the guidance., Methods: Using published recommendations, we developed criteria to assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (8th August 2013). We applied the criteria to the most recently published review, with an accessible protocol, for each Cochrane Review Group. We excluded review updates, diagnostic test accuracy reviews, withdrawn reviews, and overviews of reviews. Data were summarised regarding reviews, covariates, and analyses., Results: Each of the 52 included reviews planned or did interaction analyses; 51 reviews (98%) planned analyses and 33 reviews (63%) applied analyses. The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 24 reviews (46%). No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 22 reviews (42%) did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. Eleven reviews (21%) mentioned five covariates or less. One review reported planning to use a method to detect interactions (i.e., interaction test) for each covariate; another review reported applying the method for each covariate. Regarding interpretation, only one review reported whether an interaction was detected for each covariate and no review discussed the importance, or plausibility, of the results, or the possibility of confounding for each covariate., Conclusions: Interaction analyses in Cochrane Reviews can be substantially improved. The proposed criteria can be used to help guide the reporting and conduct of analyses.

Objectives: Definitive sample sizes for clinical trials in rare diseases are usually infeasible. Bayesian methodology can be used to maximise what is learnt from clinical trials in these circumstances. We elicited expert prior opinion for a future Bayesian randomised controlled trial for a rare inflammatory paediatric disease, polyarteritis nodosa (MYPAN, Mycophenolate mofetil for polyarteritis nodosa)., Methods: A Bayesian prior elicitation meeting was convened. Opinion was sought on the probability that a patient in the MYPAN trial treated with cyclophosphamide would achieve disease remission within 6-months, and on the relative efficacies of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide. Expert opinion was combined with previously unseen data from a recently completed randomised controlled trial in ANCA associated vasculitis., Results: A pan-European group of fifteen experts participated in the elicitation meeting. Consensus expert prior opinion was that the most likely rates of disease remission within 6 months on cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil were 74% and 71%, respectively. This prior opinion will now be taken forward and will be modified to formulate a Bayesian posterior opinion once the MYPAN trial data from 40 patients randomised 1:1 to either CYC or MMF become available., Conclusions: We suggest that the methodological template we propose could be applied to trial design for other rare diseases.

Objective: To compare quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes over 2 years following initiation of treatment with a standard or newer antiepileptic drug (AED) in adults with new-onset epilepsy. To examine the impact of seizure remission and failure of initial treatment on QoL outcomes measured over 2 years., Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized, unblinded, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial (the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs [SANAD] trial) comparing clinical and cost effectiveness of initiating treatment with carbamazepine versus lamotrigine, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, and valproate versus lamotrigine and topiramate. QoL data were collected by mail at baseline, 3 months, and at 1 and 2 years using validated measures. These data were analyzed using longitudinal data models. Continuous QoL measures, time to 12-month remission and time to treatment withdrawal were explored using joint models., Results: Baseline questionnaires were returned by 1,575 adults; 1,439 returned the 3-month questionnaire, 1,274 returned the 1-year questionnaire, and 1,121 returned the 2-year questionnaire. There were few statistically significant differences between drugs over 2 years in QoL outcomes. Significant association was identified between QoL scores over the 2-year time frame and the risk of experiencing a 12-month remission or treatment withdrawal over that period., Significance: The choice of initial treatment had no significant effect on QoL by 2-year follow-up. However, overall QoL was reduced with continued seizures, adverse events, and failure of the initial treatment., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2015 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive characterisation of rare disease clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, and compare against characteristics of trials in non-rare diseases., Design: Registry based study of ClinicalTrials.gov registration entries., Methods: The ClinicalTrials.gov registry comprised 133,128 studies registered to September 27, 2012. By annotating medical subject heading descriptors to condition terms we could identify rare and non-rare disease trials. A total of 24,088 Interventional trials registered after January 1, 2006, conducted in the United States, Canada and/or the European Union were categorised as rare or non-rare. Characteristics of the respective trials were extracted and summarised with comparative statistics calculated where appropriate., Main Outcome Measures: Characteristics of interventional trials reported in the database categorised by rare and non-rare conditions to allow comparison., Results: Of the 24,088 trials categorised 2,759 (11.5%) were classified as rare disease trials and 21,329 (88.5%) related to non-rare conditions. Despite the limitations of the database we found that rare disease trials differed to non-rare disease trials across all characteristics that we examined. Rare disease trials enrolled fewer participants (median 29 vs. 62), were more likely to be single arm (63.0% vs. 29.6%), non-randomised (64.5% vs. 36.1%) and open label (78.7% vs. 52.2%). A higher proportion of rare disease trials were terminated early (13.7% vs. 6.3%) and proportionally fewer rare disease studies were actively pursuing, or waiting to commence, enrolment (15.9% vs. 38.5%)., Conclusion: Rare disease interventional trials differ from those in non-rare conditions with notable differences in enrolment, design, blinding and randomisation. However, clinical trials should aim to implement the highest trial design standards possible, regardless of whether diseases are rare or not.

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests an association between prenatal exposure to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and increased risk of both physical anomalies and neurodevelopmental impairment. Neurodevelopmental impairment is characterised by either a specific deficit or a constellation of deficits across cognitive, motor and social skills and can be transient or continuous into adulthood. It is of paramount importance that these potential risks are identified, minimised and communicated clearly to women with epilepsy., Objectives: To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to commonly prescribed AEDs on neurodevelopmental outcomes in the child and to assess the methodological quality of the evidence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (May 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1946 to May 2014), EMBASE (May 2014), Pharmline (May 2014) and Reprotox (May 2014). No language restrictions were imposed. Conference abstracts from the last five years were reviewed along with reference lists from the included studies., Selection Criteria: Prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registers and randomised controlled trials were selected for inclusion. Participants were women with epilepsy taking AED treatment; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and women with epilepsy who were not taking AEDs during pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: Three authors (RB, JW and JG) independently selected studies for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by five authors (RB, JW, AS, NA, AJM). The primary outcome was global cognitive functioning. Secondary outcomes included deficits in specific cognitive domains or prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. Due to substantial variation in study design and outcome reporting only limited data synthesis was possible., Main Results: Twenty-two prospective cohort studies were included and six registry based studies. Study quality varied. More recent studies tended to be larger and to report individual AED outcomes from blinded assessments, which indicate improved methodological quality.The developmental quotient (DQ) was lower in children exposed to carbamazepine (CBZ) (n = 50) than in children born to women without epilepsy (n = 79); mean difference (MD) of -5.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.83 to -0.34, P = 0.04). The DQ of children exposed to CBZ (n = 163) was also lower compared to children of women with untreated epilepsy (n = 58) (MD -7.22, 95% CI -12.76 to - 1.67, P = 0.01). Further analysis using a random-effects model indicated that these results were due to variability within the studies and that there was no significant association with CBZ. The intelligence quotient (IQ) of older children exposed to CBZ (n = 150) was not lower than that of children born to women without epilepsy (n = 552) (MD -0.03, 95% CI -3.08 to 3.01, P = 0.98). Similarly, children exposed to CBZ (n = 163) were not poorer in terms of IQ in comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (n = 87) (MD 1.84, 95% CI -2.13 to 5.80, P = 0.36). The DQ in children exposed to sodium valproate (VPA) (n = 123) was lower than the DQ in children of women with untreated epilepsy (n = 58) (MD -8.72, 95% -14.31 to -3.14, P = 0.002). The IQ of children exposed to VPA (n = 76) was lower than for children born to women without epilepsy (n = 552) (MD -8.94, 95% CI -11.96 to -5.92, P < 0.00001). Children exposed to VPA (n = 89) also had lower IQ than children born to women with untreated epilepsy (n = 87) (MD -8.17, 95% CI -12.80 to -3.55, P = 0.0005).In terms of drug comparisons, in younger children there was no significant difference in the DQ of children exposed to CBZ (n = 210) versus VPA (n=160) (MD 4.16, 95% CI -0.21 to 8.54, P = 0.06). However, the IQ of children exposed to VPA (n = 112) was significantly lower than for those exposed to CBZ (n = 191) (MD 8.69, 95% CI 5.51 to 11.87, P < 0.00001). The IQ of children exposed to CBZ (n = 78) versus lamotrigine (LTG) (n = 84) was not significantly different (MD -1.62, 95% CI -5.44 to 2.21, P = 0.41). There was no significant difference in the DQ of children exposed to CBZ (n = 172) versus phenytoin (PHT) (n = 87) (MD 3.02, 95% CI -2.41 to 8.46, P = 0.28). The IQ abilities of children exposed to CBZ (n = 75) were not different from the abilities of children exposed to PHT (n = 45) (MD -3.30, 95% CI -7.91 to 1.30, P = 0.16). IQ was significantly lower for children exposed to VPA (n = 74) versus LTG (n = 84) (MD -10.80, 95% CI -14.42 to -7.17, P < 0.00001). DQ was higher in children exposed to PHT (n = 80) versus VPA (n = 108) (MD 7.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 13.65, P = 0.04). Similarly IQ was higher in children exposed to PHT (n = 45) versus VPA (n = 61) (MD 9.25, 95% CI 4.78 to 13.72, P < 0.0001). A dose effect for VPA was reported in six studies, with higher doses (800 to 1000 mg daily or above) associated with a poorer cognitive outcome in the child. We identified no convincing evidence of a dose effect for CBZ, PHT or LTG. Studies not included in the meta-analysis were reported narratively, the majority of which supported the findings of the meta-analyses., Authors' Conclusions: The most important finding is the reduction in IQ in the VPA exposed group, which are sufficient to affect education and occupational outcomes in later life. However, for some women VPA is the most effective drug at controlling seizures. Informed treatment decisions require detailed counselling about these risks at treatment initiation and at pre-conceptual counselling. We have insufficient data about newer AEDs, some of which are commonly prescribed, and further research is required. Most women with epilepsy should continue their medication during pregnancy as uncontrolled seizures also carries a maternal risk.

Background: Reductions in eating rate are recommended to prevent and treat obesity; yet, the relation between eating rate and energy intake has not been systematically reviewed, with studies producing mixed results., Objective: Our main objective was to examine how experimentally manipulated differences in eating rate influence concurrent energy intake and subjective hunger ratings., Design: We systematically reviewed studies that experimentally manipulated eating rate and measured concurrent food intake, self-reported hunger, or both. We combined effect estimates from studies by using inverse variance meta-analysis, calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake between fast and slow eating rate conditions., Results: Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion. Evidence indicated that a slower eating rate was associated with lower energy intake in comparison to a faster eating rate (random-effects SMD: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.65; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect was consistent regardless of the type of manipulation used to alter eating rate, although there was a large amount of heterogeneity between studies. There was no significant relation between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or up to 3.5 h later., Conclusions: Evidence to date supports the notion that eating rate affects energy intake. Research is needed to identify effective interventions to reduce eating rate that can be adopted in everyday life to help limit excess consumption., (© 2014 American Society for Nutrition.)

Objectives: To develop prognostic models for time to 12-month remission and time to treatment failure after initiating antiepileptic drug monotherapy for generalised and unclassified epilepsy., Methods: We analysed data from the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drug (arm B) study, a randomised trial that compared initiating treatment with lamotrigine, topiramate and valproate in patients diagnosed with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Multivariable regression modelling was used to investigate how clinical factors affect the probability of achieving 12-month remission and treatment failure., Results: Significant factors in the multivariable model for time to 12-month remission were having a relative with epilepsy, neurological insult, total number of tonic-clonic seizures before randomisation, seizure type and treatment. Significant factors in the multivariable model for time to treatment failure were treatment history (antiepileptic drug treatment prior to randomisation), EEG result, seizure type and treatment., Conclusions: The models described within this paper can be used to identify patients most likely to achieve 12-month remission and most likely to have treatment failure, aiding individual patient risk stratification and the design and analysis of future epilepsy trials.

Background: Calls have been made for increased access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials, to ensure that complete evidence is available. However, despite the obvious benefits, progress towards this is frustratingly slow. In the meantime, many systematic reviews have already collected IPD from clinical trials. We propose that a central repository for these IPD should be established to ensure that these datasets are safeguarded and made available for use by others, building on the strengths and advantages of the collaborative groups that have been brought together in developing the datasets., Objective: Evaluate the level of support, and identify major issues, for establishing a central repository of IPD., Design: On-line survey with email reminders., Participants: 71 reviewers affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration's IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group were invited to participate., Results: 30 (42%) invitees responded: 28 (93%) had been involved in an IPD review and 24 (80%) had been involved in a randomised trial. 25 (83%) agreed that a central repository was a good idea and 25 (83%) agreed that they would provide their IPD for central storage. Several benefits of a central repository were noted: safeguarding and standardisation of data, increased efficiency of IPD meta-analyses, knowledge advancement, and facilitating future clinical, and methodological research. The main concerns were gaining permission from trial data owners, uncertainty about the purpose of the repository, potential resource implications, and increased workload for IPD reviewers. Restricted access requiring approval, data security, anonymisation of data, and oversight committees were highlighted as issues under governance of the repository., Conclusion: There is support in this community of IPD reviewers, many of whom are also involved in clinical trials, for storing IPD in a central repository. Results from this survey are informing further work on developing a repository of IPD which is currently underway by our group.

Background: The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is increasing in the developed world. This has led to a large rise in research activity and clinical trials in this area, yet there is no consensus on which outcomes should be measured. As a result, the outcomes measured often differ between trials of comparable interventions, making the combination or comparison of results between trials impossible. Outcomes may also be 'cherry-picked', such that favourable results are reported, and less favourable results withheld. The development of a minimum outcome reporting standard, known as a core outcome set, goes some way to addressing these problems. Core outcome sets are ideally developed using a patient-centred approach so that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and clinical practice. Core outcome sets drive up the quality and relevance of research by ensuring that the right outcomes are consistently measured and reported in trials in specific areas of health or healthcare., Methods/design: This is a mixed methods study involving three phases to develop a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer clinical trials. Firstly, a systematic review will establish which outcomes are measured in published oropharyngeal cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Secondly, qualitative interviews with patients and carers in the UK and the USA will aim to establish which outcomes are important to these stakeholders. Data from these first two stages will be used to develop a comprehensive list of outcomes to be considered for inclusion in the core outcome set. In the third stage, patients and clinicians will participate in an iterative consensus exercise known as a Delphi study to refine the contents of the core outcome set. This protocol lays out the methodology to be implemented in the CONSENSUS study., Discussion: A core outcome set defines a minimum outcome reporting standard for clinical trials in a particular area of health or healthcare. Its consistent implementation in oropharyngeal cancer clinical trials will improve the quality and relevance of research., Trials and Registration: This study is registered at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio, ID 13823 (17 January 2013).

Background: Some level of monitoring is usually required during a clinical trial to protect the rights and safety of trial participants and to safeguard the quality and reliability of trial results. Although there is increasing support for the use of risk-proportionate approaches to achieve these aims, the variety of methods and lack of an empirical evidence base can present challenges for clinical trial practitioners., Methods: This paper describes the monitoring methods and procedures that are utilised by a non-commercial clinical trials unit which coordinates a range of clinical trials across a variety of clinical areas with different associated risks., Results: Monitoring activities and approaches should be selected to be proportionate to the risks identified within a trial. A risk-proportionate approach to monitoring is described giving details of methods that may be considered by clinical trial practitioners during the development of a trial monitoring plan. An example risk assessment and corresponding monitoring plan for a low risk (type A in the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) classification system) pediatric trial is provided for illustration., Conclusion: We present ideas for developing a monitoring plan for a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product based on our experience. Alternative approaches may be relevant or preferable in other settings based on inherent risk.

Evidence from clinical trials, ideally using randomisation and allocation concealment, is essential for informing clinical decisions regarding the benefits and harms of treatments for patients. Where diseases are rare, such as in paediatric rheumatic diseases, patient recruitment into clinical trials can be a major obstacle, leading to an absence of evidence and patients receiving treatments based on anecdotal evidence. There are numerous trial designs and modifications that can be made to improve efficiency and maximise what little data may be available in a rare disease clinical trial. These are discussed and illustrated with examples from paediatric rheumatology. Regulatory incentives and support from research networks have helped to deliver these trials, but more can be done to continue this important research., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust., Methods: An on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken. During round one, CTU Directors were asked to identify important topics that require methodological research. During round two, their opinion about the level of importance of each topic was recorded, and during round three, they were asked to review the group's average opinion and revise their previous opinion if appropriate. Direct reminders were sent to maximise the number of responses at each round. Results are summarised using descriptive methods., Results: Forty one (85%) CTU Directors responded to at least one round of the Delphi process: 25 (52%) responded in round one, 32 (67%) responded in round two, 24 (50%) responded in round three. There were only 12 (25%) who responded to all three rounds and 18 (38%) who responded to both rounds two and three. Consensus was achieved amongst CTU Directors that the top three priorities for trials methodological research were 'Research into methods to boost recruitment in trials' (considered the highest priority), 'Methods to minimise attrition' and 'Choosing appropriate outcomes to measure'. Fifty other topics were included in the list of priorities and consensus was reached that two topics, 'Radiotherapy study designs' and 'Low carbon trials', were not priorities., Conclusions: This priority setting exercise has identified the research topics felt to be most important to the key stakeholder group of Directors of UKCRC registered CTUs. The use of robust methodology to identify these priorities will help ensure that this work informs the trials methodological research agenda, with a focus on topics that will have most impact and relevance.