Antiviral treatment for Bell’s palsy (Idiopathic facial paralysis)

Background Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell’s palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell’s palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account. Objectives To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell’s palsy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies. Selection criteria We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell’s palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months. Data collection and analysis We independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses. Main results Fourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update. Incomplete recovery A combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell’s palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell’s palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects). Motor synkinesis or crocodile tears Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell’s palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo. Adverse events Adverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence). Authors’ conclusions The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell’s palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell’s palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo. The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell’s palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants. We found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions. An adequately powered RCT in people with Bell’s palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Corticosteroids for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis)

Background: Inflammation and oedema of the facial nerve are implicated in causing Bell's palsy. Corticosteroids have a potent anti-inflammatory action that should minimise nerve damage. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2010. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid therapy in people with Bell's palsy. Search Methods: On 4 March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomised trials and contacted known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished trials. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials. Selection criteria: Randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing different routes of administration and dosage schemes of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone therapy versus a control group receiving no therapy considered effective for this condition, unless the same therapy was given in a similar way to the experimental group. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodology. The main outcome of interest was incomplete recovery of facial motor function (i.e. residual facial weakness). Secondary outcomes were cosmetically disabling persistent sequelae, development of motor synkinesis or autonomic dysfunction (i.e. hemifacial spasm, crocodile tears) and adverse effects of corticosteroid therapy manifested during follow-up. Main results: We identified seven trials, with 895 evaluable participants for this review. All provided data suitable for the primary outcome meta-analysis. One of the trials was new since the last version of this Cochrane systematic review. Risk of bias in the older, smaller studies included some unclear- or high-risk assessments, whereas we deemed the larger studies at low risk of bias. Overall, 79/452 (17%) participants allocated to corticosteroids had incomplete recovery of facial motor function six months or more after randomisation; significantly fewer than the 125/447 (28%) in the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.80, seven trials, n = 895). The number of people who need to be treated with corticosteroids to avoid one incomplete recovery was 10 (95% CI 6 to 20). The reduction in the proportion of participants with cosmetically disabling sequelae six months after randomisation was very similar in the corticosteroid and placebo groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.29, two trials, n = 75, low-quality evidence). However, there was a significant reduction in motor synkinesis during follow-up in participants receiving corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.91, three trials, n = 485, moderate-quality evidence). Three studies explicitly recorded the absence of adverse effects attributable to corticosteroids. One trial reported that three participants receiving prednisolone had temporary sleep disturbances and two trials gave a detailed account of adverse effects occurring in 93 participants, all non-serious; the combined analysis of data from these three trials found no significant difference in adverse effect rates between people receiving corticosteroids and people receiving placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, n = 715). Author's conclusions: The available moderate- to high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed significant benefit from treating Bell's palsy with corticosteroids.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study

Introduction: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. Methods and analysis: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID‐19

Background Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID‐19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID‐19 and for preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in‐between publication of review updates. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022. This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. Selection criteria Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID‐19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in post‐exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, development of COVID‐19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially‐disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Main results As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID‐19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers. We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID‐19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high‐risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all‐cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low‐certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low‐certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment‐emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment‐related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance. Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient. The outcome ‘admission to hospital or death’ was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID‐19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. Authors' conclusions There is low‐certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all‐cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID‐19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low‐ to moderate‐certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID‐19 and to prevent a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF

Strategies to reduce antibiotic use in women with uncomplicated urinary tract infection in primary care: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis including individual patient data.

INTRODUCTION Uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in women is a common reason to present in general practice and is usually treated with antibiotics to reduce symptom severity and duration. Results of recent clinical trials indicate that non-antibiotic treatment approaches can also be effective. However, it remains unclear which patients would benefit from antibiotic treatment and which can effectively and safely be treated without antibiotics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of treatment strategies to reduce antibiotic use in comparison with immediate antibiotic treatment and to identify prognostic factors and moderators of treatment effects. A further aim is to identify subgroups of patients benefiting from a specific therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A systematic literature search will be performed to identify randomised controlled trials which investigated the effect of treatment strategies to reduce antibiotic use in female adults with uncomplicated UTI compared with immediate antibiotic treatment. Therefore, the primary outcome of the meta-analysis is incomplete recovery. Anonymised individual patient data (IPD) will be collected. Aggregate data will be used for pairwise comparisons of treatment strategies using meta-analysis models with random effects accounting for potential between-study heterogeneity. Potential effect moderators will be explored in meta-regressions. For IPD, generalised linear mixed models will be used, which may be adjusted for baseline characteristics. Interactions of baseline variables with treatment effects will be explored. These models will be used to assess direct comparisons of treatment, but might be extended to networks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The local institutional review and ethics board judged the project a secondary analysis of existing anonymous data which meet the criteria for waiver of ethics review. Dissemination of the results will be via published scientific papers and presentations. Key messages will be promoted for example, via social media or press releases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42019125804

Antiviral agents added to corticosteroids for early treatment of adults with acute idiopathic facial nerve paralysis (Bell Palsy)

CLINICAL QUESTION: Compared with oral corticosteroids alone, are oral antiviral drugs associated with improved outcomes when combined with oral corticosteroids in patients presenting within 72 hours of the onset of Bell palsy?BOTTOM LINE: Compared with oral corticosteroids alone, the addition of acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famcyclovir to oral corticosteroids for treatment of Bell palsy was associated with a higher proportion of people who recovered at 3- to 12-month follow-up. The quality of evidence is limited by heterogeneity, imprecision of the result estimates, and risk of bias.</p

Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis)

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. Significant morbidity can be associated with severe cases of Bell's palsy.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.METHODS:Search methods:On 7 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, DARE, NHS EED, and HTA. We also reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors and known experts in the field and relevant drug companies to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.Selection criteria:We considered randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy.We excluded trials that had a high risk of bias in several domains.Data collection and analysis:Pairs of authors independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures.MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials, including 2883 participants, met the inclusion criteria and are included in the final analysis. We added four studies to the previous review for this update. Some of the trials were small, and a number were at high or unclear risk of bias. Other trials did not meet current best standards in allocation concealment and blinding. Incomplete recovery:We found no significant benefit from adding antivirals to corticosteroids in comparison with corticosteroids alone for people with Bell's palsy (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.02, n = 1715). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House Brackmann scores of 5 and 6 or the equivalent in other scales), we found aMotor synkinesis or crocodile tears:In three trials comparing antivirals and corticosteroids with corticosteroids and placebo that assessed this outcome, we found a significant difference in long-term sequelae in favour or antivirals plus corticosteroids (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99, n = 869). Three trials comparing antivirals alone with corticosteroids alone investigating this outcome showed fewer sequelae with corticosteroids (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.85, n = 873). We found no data on long-term sequelae for other comparisons.Adverse events:Adverse event data were available in three studies giving comparison data on 1528 participants. None of the four comparisons (antivirals plus corticosteroids versus corticosteroids plus placebo or no treatment; antivirals versus corticosteroids; antivirals plus corticosteroids versus placebo; antivirals versus placebo) showed significant differences in adverse events between treatment and control arms. We could find no correlation with specific treatment within these results.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed no additional benefit from the combination of antivirals with corticosteroids compared to corticosteroids alone or with placebo, and no benefit from antivirals alone compared to placebo, for the treatment of Bell's palsy. Moderate-quality evidence showed a small but just significant benefit of combination therapy compared with corticosteroids alone in severe Bell's palsy. We found no significant increase in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids

Management of Common Infections in German Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Knowledge and Confidence among General Practitioners and Outpatient Pediatricians

Outpatient antibiotic use is closely related to antimicrobial resistance and in Germany, almost 70% of antibiotic prescriptions in human health are issued by primary care physicians (PCPs). The aim of this study was to explore PCPs, namely General Practitioners’ (GPs) and outpatient pediatricians’ (PDs) knowledge of guideline recommendations on rational antimicrobial treatment, the determinants of confidence in treatment decisions and the perceived need for training in this topic in a large sample of PCPs from southern Germany. Out of 3753 reachable PCPs, 1311 completed the survey (overall response rate = 34.9%). Knowledge of guideline recommendations and perceived confidence in making treatment decisions were high in both GPs and PDs. The two highest rated influencing factors on prescribing decisions were reported to be guideline recommendations and own clinical experiences, hence patients’ demands and expectations were judged as not influencing treatment decisions. The majority of physicians declared to have attended at least one specific training course on antibiotic use, yet almost all the participating PCPs declared to need more training on this topic. More studies are needed to explore how consultation-related and context-specific factors could influence antibiotic prescriptions in general and pediatric primary care in Germany beyond knowledge. Moreover, efforts should be undertaken to explore the training needs of PCPs in Germany, as this would serve the development of evidence-based educational interventions targeted to the improvement of antibiotic prescribing decisions rather than being focused solely on knowledge of guidelines