Zonisamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

There was high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of topical azelaic acid, topical ivermectin, brimonidine, doxycycline and isotretinoin for rosacea. Moderate quality evidence was available for topical metronidazole and oral tetracycline. There was low quality evidence for low dose minocycline, laser and intense pulsed light therapy and ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion for ocular rosacea. Time needed to response and response duration should be addressed more completely, with more rigorous reporting of adverse events. Further studies on treatment of ocular rosacea are warranted.

There was low or moderate quality evidence that tibolone, raloxifene, estriol and ipriflavone help to preserve bone density and that MPA and tibolone may reduce vasomotor symptoms. Larger uterine volume was an adverse effect associated with some add-back therapies (MPA, tibolone and conjugated estrogens). For other comparisons, outcomes of interest were not reported or study findings were inconclusive.

Although most people with epilepsy achieve complete seizure cessation, approximately one-third of those with the condition continue experiencing seizures despite the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) given as monotherapy or polytherapy. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about cenobamate as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on oral cenobamate for the treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures, defined as seizures persisting despite treatment with one or more ASMs. We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (September 2022). In addition, we contacted the manufacturer of cenobamate and experts in the field to enquire after any ongoing or unpublished studies. RCTs comparing add-on cenobamate to placebo or another ASM in people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessment, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency, seizure freedom, and the occurrence of adverse events. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. For each outcome we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We summarised the estimates of effects and certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a summary of findings table. We included two studies (659 adult participants, 442 allocated to cenobamate and 217 to placebo). The overall RR for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 2.17 (52% versus 24%, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.84; 2 studies, 605 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 4.45 (16% versus 5%, 95% CI 2.25 to 8.78; 2 studies, 605 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for the occurrence of adverse events for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 1.14 (77% versus 67%, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 2 studies, 659 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We judged the two included RCTs as at low or unclear risk of bias. Both studies were sponsored by the drug company that produces cenobamate. Add-on cenobamate is probably better than placebo in reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50% and in achieving seizure freedom in adults with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs (moderate level of certainty). Its use is probably associated with an increased risk of adverse events (moderate level of certainty). Further prospective, controlled trials are required to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of add-on cenobamate compared to other ASMs. The efficacy and tolerability of cenobamate as adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy in children should be further investigated. Finally, the long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on cenobamate treatment in people with other epilepsy types (e.g. generalised epilepsy) or specific epilepsy syndromes, as well as its use as monotherapy, require additional study.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the following for their contributions to the 2020 update. All staff at the editorial base of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Review Group; and in particular, Helen Nagels (Managing Editor) and Information Specialist Marian Showell, for help with the literature searches. Drs Jeanette MacKenzie, Evi Vogiatzi and Rik van Eekelen who provided peer review comments. We also thank all the authors who replied to our email queries about their study: Dr Elisabet Clua, Dr Maria Luisa López‐Regalado and Dr OM Abuzeid. We also thank the following. Zabeena Pandian, who was the lead author of the original review and two subsequent updates. Other co‐authors for their contribution in the previous versions: Allan Templeton, Ozkan Ozturk, Gamal Serour, and Jane Marjoribanks. Statistician Andy Vail (University of Manchester University, UK) for methodological advice.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults.

For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

Prenatal administration of progestogens for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy.

Aspirin is the prophylactic antiplatelet drug of choice for people with cardiovascular disease. Adding a second antiplatelet drug to aspirin may produce additional benefit for people at high risk and people with established cardiovascular disease. This is an update to a previously published review from 2011. To review the benefit and harm of adding clopidogrel to aspirin therapy for preventing cardiovascular events in people who have coronary disease, ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or were at high risk of atherothrombotic disease, but did not have a coronary stent. We updated the searches of CENTRAL (2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 4 July 2017) and Embase (Ovid, 1947 to 3 July 2017) on 4 July 2017. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP portal, and handsearched reference lists. We applied no language restrictions. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing over 30 days use of aspirin plus clopidogrel with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone in people with coronary disease, ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or at high risk of atherothrombotic disease. We excluded studies including only people with coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) or non-DES, or both. We collected data on mortality from cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal ischaemic stroke, major and minor bleeding. The overall treatment effect was estimated by the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel); we used a random-effects model in cases of moderate or severe heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 30%). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used GRADE profiler (GRADE Pro) to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. The search identified 13 studies in addition to the two studies in the previous version of our systematic review. Overall, we included data from 15 trials with 33,970 people. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The risk of bias was low in four trials because they were at low risk of bias for all key domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, selective outcome reporting and incomplete outcome data), even if some of them were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Analysis showed no difference in the effectiveness of aspirin plus clopidogrel in preventing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10; participants = 31,903; studies = 7; moderate quality evidence), and no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25; participants = 32,908; studies = 9; low quality evidence).There was a lower risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction with clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; participants = 16,175; studies = 6; moderate quality evidence). There was a reduction in the risk of fatal and non-fatal ischaemic stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91; participants = 4006; studies = 5; moderate quality evidence).However, there was a higher risk of major bleeding with clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.64; participants = 33,300; studies = 10; moderate quality evidence) and of minor bleeding (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.36; participants = 14,731; studies = 8; moderate quality evidence).Overall, we would expect 13 myocardial infarctions and 23 ischaemic strokes be prevented for every 1000 patients treated with the combination in a median follow-up period of 12 months, but 9 major bleeds and 33 minor bleeds would be caused during a median follow-up period of 10.5 and 6 months, respectively. The available evidence demonstrates that the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease and people with established cardiovascular disease without a coronary stent is associated with a reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke, and an increased risk of major and minor bleeding compared with aspirin alone. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes except all-cause mortality (low quality evidence) and adverse events (very low quality evidence).

This review does not provide sufficient evidence to influence practice. In particular, no trials compared fetal movement counting with no fetal movement counting. Only two studies compared routine fetal movements with standard antenatal care, as defined by trial authors. Indirect evidence from a large cluster-RCT suggested that more babies at risk of death were identified in the routine fetal monitoring group, but this did not translate to reduced perinatal mortality. Robust research by means of studies comparing particularly routine fetal movement counting with selective fetal movement counting is needed urgently, as it is a common practice to introduce fetal movement counting only when there is already suspected fetal compromise.

Stable angina pectoris is a chronic medical condition with significant impact on mortality and quality of life; it can be macrovascular or microvascular in origin. Ranolazine is a second-line anti-anginal drug approved for use in people with stable angina. However, the effects of ranolazine for people with angina are considered to be modest, with uncertain clinical relevance. To assess the effects of ranolazine on cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, quality of life, acute myocardial infarction incidence, angina episodes frequency and adverse events incidence in stable angina patients, used either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy, and compared to placebo or any other anti-anginal agent. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science in February 2016, as well as regional databases and trials registers. We also screened reference lists. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared the effects of ranolazine versus placebo or other anti-anginals in people with stable angina pectoris were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Estimates of treatment effects were calculated using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Where we found statistically significant heterogeneity (Chi² P < 0.10), we used a random-effects model for pooling estimates. Meta-analysis was not performed where we found considerable heterogeneity (I² ≥ 75%). We used GRADE criteria to assess evidence quality and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create 'Summary of findings' tables. We included 17 RCTs (9975 participants, mean age 63.3 years). We found very limited (or no) data to inform most planned comparisons. Summary data were used to inform comparison of ranolazine versus placebo. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear.For add-on ranolazine compared to placebo, no data were available to estimate cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. We found uncertainty about the effect of ranolazine on: all-cause mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.71; 3 studies, 2053 participants; low quality evidence); quality of life (any dose, SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.52; 4 studies, 1563 participants; I² = 73%; moderate quality evidence); and incidence of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1000mg twice daily, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.07; 2 studies, 1509 participants; low quality evidence). Add-on ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily reduced the fervour of angina episodes (MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.35; 3 studies, 2004 participants; I² = 39%; moderate quality evidence) but increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; 3 studies, 2053 participants; moderate quality evidence).For ranolazine as monotherapy compared to placebo, we found uncertain effect on cardiovascular mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.88; 1 study, 2604 participants; low quality evidence). No data were available to estimate non-cardiovascular mortality. We also found an uncertain effect on all-cause mortality for ranolazine (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.25; 3 studies, 6249 participants; low quality evidence), quality of life (1000 mg twice daily, MD 0.28, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.13; 3 studies, 2254 participants; moderate quality evidence), non-fatal AMI incidence (any dose, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12; 3 studies, 2983 participants; I² = 50%; low quality evidence), and frequency of angina episodes (any dose, MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.01; 2 studies, 402 participants; low quality evidence). We found an increased risk for non-serious adverse events associated with ranolazine (any dose, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.00; 3 studies, 947 participants; very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence showing that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as monotherapy had increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo. We found low quality evidence indicating that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on the risk of cardiovascular death (for ranolazine given as monotherapy), all-cause death and non-fatal AMI, and the frequency of angina episodes (for ranolazine given as monotherapy) compared to those given placebo. Moderate quality evidence indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on quality of life compared with people who received placebo. Moderate quality evidence also indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as add-on therapy had fewer angina episodes but increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo.

The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those when it was first published. There is moderate quality evidence of a large caries-inhibiting effect of fluoride gel in the permanent dentition. Information concerning the caries-preventive effect of fluoride gel on the primary dentition, which also shows a large effect, is based on low quality evidence from only three placebo-controlled trials. There is little information on adverse effects or on acceptability of treatment. Future trials should include assessment of potential adverse effects.

Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.

Patients with CFS may generally benefit and feel less fatigued following exercise therapy, and no evidence suggests that exercise therapy may worsen outcomes. A positive effect with respect to sleep, physical function and self-perceived general health has been observed, but no conclusions for the outcomes of pain, quality of life, anxiety, depression, drop-out rate and health service resources were possible. The effectiveness of exercise therapy seems greater than that of pacing but similar to that of CBT. Randomised trials with low risk of bias are needed to investigate the type, duration and intensity of the most beneficial exercise intervention.