Clinical utility of implantable neurostimulation devices as adjunctive treatment of uncontrolled seizures

About one third of patients with epilepsy are refractory to medical treatment. For these patients, alternative treatment options include implantable neurostimulation devices such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation systems (RNS). We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the available evidence on the clinical efficacy of these devices in patients with refractory epilepsy across their lifespan. VNS has the largest evidence base, and numerous randomized controlled trials and open-label studies support its use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1997 for treatment of partial seizures, but has also shown significant benefit in the treatment of generalized seizures. Results in adult populations have been more encouraging than in pediatric populations, where more studies are required. VNS is considered a safe and well-tolerated treatment, and serious side effects are rare. DBS is a well-established treatment for several movement disorders, and has a small evidence base for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus has shown the most encouraging results, where significant decreases in seizure frequency were reported. Other potential targets include the centromedian thalamic nucleus, hippocampus, cerebellum, and basal ganglia structures. Preliminary results on RNS, new-generation implantable neurostimulation devices which stimulate brain structures only when epileptic activity is detected, are encouraging. Overall, implantable neurostimulation devices appear to be a safe and beneficial treatment option for patients in whom medical treatment has failed to adequately control their epilepsy. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are required to provide a sufficient evidence base for the inclusion of DBS and RNS in clinical guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections (SGA LAIs) in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder:protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder requires long-term treatment but non-adherence is a common problem. Antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) have been suggested to improve adherence but none are licensed in the UK for bipolar. However, the use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) LAIs in bipolar is not uncommon albeit there is a lack of systematic review in this area. This study aims to systematically review safety and efficacy of SGA LAIs in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and will include only randomised controlled trials comparing SGA LAIs in bipolar. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PsychINFO, LiLACS, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov will be searched, with no language restriction, from 2000 to January 2016 as first SGA LAIs came to the market after 2000. Manufacturers of SGA LAIs will also be contacted. Primary efficacy outcome is relapse rate or delayed time to relapse or reduction in hospitalisation and primary safety outcomes are drop-out rates, all-cause discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events. Qualitative reporting of evidence will be based on 21 items listed on standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) focusing on study quality (assessed using the Jadad score, allocation concealment and data analysis), risk of bias and effect size. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots. If sufficient data are available meta-analysis will be performed with primary effect size as relative risk presented with 95% CI. Sensitivity analysis, conditional on number of studies and sample size, will be carried out on manic versus depressive symptoms and monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy.

Discovering biomarkers for antidepressant response:protocol from the Canadian biomarker integration network in depression (CAN-BIND) and clinical characteristics of the first patient cohort

Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is among the most prevalent and disabling medical conditions worldwide. Identification of clinical and biological markers ("biomarkers") of treatment response could personalize clinical decisions and lead to better outcomes. This paper describes the aims, design, and methods of a discovery study of biomarkers in antidepressant treatment response, conducted by the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND). The CAN-BIND research program investigates and identifies biomarkers that help to predict outcomes in patients with MDD treated with antidepressant medication. The primary objective of this initial study (known as CAN-BIND-1) is to identify individual and integrated neuroimaging, electrophysiological, molecular, and clinical predictors of response to sequential antidepressant monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in MDD. Methods: CAN-BIND-1 is a multisite initiative involving 6 academic health centres working collaboratively with other universities and research centres. In the 16-week protocol, patients with MDD are treated with a first-line antidepressant (escitalopram 10-20 mg/d) that, if clinically warranted after eight weeks, is augmented with an evidence-based, add-on medication (aripiprazole 2-10 mg/d). Comprehensive datasets are obtained using clinical rating scales; behavioural, dimensional, and functioning/quality of life measures; neurocognitive testing; genomic, genetic, and proteomic profiling from blood samples; combined structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging; and electroencephalography. De-identified data from all sites are aggregated within a secure neuroinformatics platform for data integration, management, storage, and analyses. Statistical analyses will include multivariate and machine-learning techniques to identify predictors, moderators, and mediators of treatment response. Discussion: From June 2013 to February 2015, a cohort of 134 participants (85 outpatients with MDD and 49 healthy participants) has been evaluated at baseline. The clinical characteristics of this cohort are similar to other studies of MDD. Recruitment at all sites is ongoing to a target sample of 290 participants. CAN-BIND will identify biomarkers of treatment response in MDD through extensive clinical, molecular, and imaging assessments, in order to improve treatment practice and clinical outcomes. It will also create an innovative, robust platform and database for future research. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01655706. Registered July 27, 2012.

Functional outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study - Part 3:oral health and audiology

OBJECTIVES: To compare oral health and hearing outcomes from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG, 1998) and the Cleft Care UK (CCUK, 2013) studies. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two UK-based cross-sectional studies of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate undertaken 15 years apart. CSAG children were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. CCUK children were treated in a centralized, high volume operator system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral health data were collected using a standardized proforma. Hearing was assessed using pure tone audiometry and middle ear status by otoscopy and tympanometry. ENT and hearing history were collected from medical notes and parental report. RESULTS: Oral health was assessed in 264 of 268 children (98.5%). The mean dmft was 2.3, 48% were caries free, and 44.7% had untreated caries. There was no evidence this had changed since the CSAG survey. Oral hygiene was generally good, 96% were enrolled with a dentist. Audiology was assessed in 227 of 268 children (84.7%). Forty-three per cent of children received at least one set of grommets--a 17.6% reduction compared to CSAG. Abnormal middle ear status was apparent in 50.7% of children. There was no change in hearing levels, but more children with hearing loss were managed with hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for dental caries and hearing were no better in CCUK than in CSAG, although there was reduced use of grommets and increased use of hearing aids. The service specifications and recommendations should be scrutinized and implemented.

A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate:the Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: background and methodology

OBJECTIVES: We describe the methodology for a major study investigating the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after an initial survey, detailed in the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report in 1998, had informed government recommendations on centralization. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: This is a UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Children born between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 were seen in cleft centre audit clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consent was obtained for the collection of routine clinical measures (speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health, psychosocial factors) and anthropometric measures (height, weight, head circumference). The methodology for each clinical measure followed those of the earlier survey as closely as possible. RESULTS: We identified 359 eligible children and recruited 268 (74.7%) to the study. Eleven separate records for each child were collected at the audit clinics. In total, 2666 (90.4%) were collected from a potential 2948 records. The response rates for the self-reported questionnaires, completed at home, were 52.6% for the Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire and 52.2% for the Satisfaction with Service Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates and measures were similar to those achieved in the previous survey. There are practical, administrative and methodological challenges in repeating cross-sectional surveys 15 years apart and producing comparable data.

Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6:a tale of two studies

OBJECTIVES: We summarize and critique the methodology and outcomes from a substantial study which has investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after the UK government started to implement the centralization of cleft care in response to an earlier survey in 1998, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Data were collected from children born in the UK with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We discuss and contextualize the outcomes from speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health and psychosocial factors in the current study. We refer to the earlier survey and other relevant studies. RESULTS: We present arguments for centralization of cleft care in healthcare systems, and we evidence this with improvements seen over a period of 15 years in the UK. We also make recommendations on how future audit and research may configure. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate have improved after the introduction of a centralized multidisciplinary service, and other countries may benefit from this model. Predictors of early outcomes are still needed, and repeated cross-sectional studies, larger longitudinal studies and adequately powered trials are required to create a research-led evidence-based (centralized) service.