OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and ongoing trials registries with no language restrictions. We searched conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences. Date of the last searches: 15 July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study; a third review author verified the extracted data and risk of bias decisions. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS: The current update added seven RCTs, bringing the total number to 10 RCTs (with 1008 participants aged 3 months to 65 years; 484 males). All TSC diagnoses were by consensus criteria as a minimum. In parallel studies, 645 participants received active interventions and 340 placebo. Evidence is low-to-high certainty and study quality is mixed; mostly a low risk of bias across domains, but one study had a high risk of performance bias (lack of blinding) and three studies had a high risk of attrition bias. Manufacturers of the investigational products supported eight studies. Systemic administration Six studies (703 participants) administered everolimus (rapalog) orally. More participants in the intervention arm reduced renal angiomyolipoma size by 50% (risk ratio (RR) 24.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51 to 173.41; P = 0.001; 2 studies, 162 participants, high-certainty evidence). In the intervention arm, more participants in the intervention arm reduced SEGA tumour size by 50% (RR 27.85, 95% CI 1.74 to 444.82; P = 0.02; 1 study; 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) ,and reported more skin responses (RR 5.78, 95% CI 2.30 to 14.52; P = 0.0002; 2 studies; 224 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one 18-week study (366 participants), the intervention led to 25% fewer seizures (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.09; P = 0.0001) or 50% fewer seizures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.60; P = 0.0004); but there was no difference in numbers being seizure-free (RR 5.30, 95% CI 0.69 to 40.57; P = 0.11) (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (42 participants) showed no difference in neurocognitive, neuropsychiatry, behavioural, sensory and motor development (low-certainty evidence). Total adverse events (AEs) did not differ between groups (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22; P = 0.16; 5 studies; 680 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, the intervention group experienced more AEs resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduced dose (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.33; P = 0.0002; 4 studies; 633 participants; high-certainty evidence and also reported more severe AEs (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.58; P = 0.05; 2 studies; 413 participants; high-certainty evidence). Topical (skin) administration Four studies (305 participants) administered rapamycin topically. More participants in the intervention arm showed a response to skin lesions (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.18; P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 187 participants; high-certainty evidence) and more participants in the placebo arm reported a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; 1 study; 164 participants; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the intervention arm responded to facial angiofibroma at one to three months (RR 28.74, 95% CI 1.78 to 463.19; P = 0.02) and three to six months (RR 39.39, 95% CI 2.48 to 626.00; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). Similar results were noted for cephalic plaques at one to three months (RR 10.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 186.08; P = 0.10) and three to six months (RR 7.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 53.83; P = 0.05; low-certainty evidence). More participants on placebo showed a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; P < 0.0001; 1 study; 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention arm reported a higher general improvement score (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.34; P < 0.0001), but no difference specifically in the adult subgroup (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.58 to 0.08; P = 0.08; 1 study; 36 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants in the intervention arm reported higher satisfaction than with placebo (MD -0.92, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.05; P = 0.04; 1 study; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence), although again with no difference among adults (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.70; 1 study; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Groups did not differ in change in quality of life at six months (MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.61; P = 0.65; 1 study; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment led to a higher risk of any AE compared to placebo (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10, 2.67; P = 0.02; 3 studies; 277 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but no difference between groups in severe AEs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; P = 0.73; 1 study; 179 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.

OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation). 2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.

MAIN RESULTS: We included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies. Comparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone We did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison. Comparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices 2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP Two studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. 2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP We included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes. 2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. Comparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To examine 1. the effects of individual classes of haemostatic therapies, compared with placebo or open control, in adults with acute spontaneous ICH, and 2. the effects of each class of haemostatic therapy according to the use and type of antithrombotic drug before ICH onset.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL (2022, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid on 12 September 2022. To identify further published, ongoing, and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we scanned bibliographies of relevant articles and searched international registers of RCTs in September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of any haemostatic intervention (i.e. procoagulant treatments such as clotting factor concentrates, antifibrinolytic drugs, platelet transfusion, or agents to reverse the action of antithrombotic drugs) for acute spontaneous ICH, compared with placebo, open control, or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was death/dependence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 4 to 6) by day 90. Secondary outcomes were ICH expansion on brain imaging after 24 hours, all serious adverse events, thromboembolic adverse events, death from any cause, quality of life, mood, cognitive function, Barthel Index score, and death or dependence measured on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale by day 90.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs involving 4652 participants: nine RCTs of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) versus placebo/open control (1549 participants), eight RCTs of antifibrinolytic drugs versus placebo/open control (2866 participants), one RCT of platelet transfusion versus open control (190 participants), and two RCTs of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (47 participants). Four (20%) RCTs were at low risk of bias in all criteria. For rFVIIa versus placebo/open control for spontaneous ICH with or without surgery there was little to no difference in death/dependence by day 90 (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found little to no difference in ICH expansion between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; 4 RCTs, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.22; 2 RCTs, 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence; death from any cause: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.08; 8 RCTs, 1544 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For antifibrinolytic drugs versus placebo/open control for spontaneous ICH, there was no difference in death/dependence by day 90 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 2683 participants; high-certainty evidence). We found a slight reduction in ICH expansion with antifibrinolytic drugs for spontaneous ICH compared to placebo/open control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; 8 RCTs, 2866 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 2599 participants; high-certainty evidence; death from any cause: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; 8 RCTs, 2866 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in quality of life, mood, or cognitive function (quality of life: mean difference (MD) 0, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 2349 participants; mood: MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.98 to 2.57; 2 RCTs, 2349 participants; cognitive function: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.66; 1 RCTs, 2325 participants; all high-certainty evidence). Platelet transfusion likely increases death/dependence by day 90 compared to open control for antiplatelet-associated ICH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no difference in ICH expansion between groups (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 1 RCT, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.16; 1 RCT, 190 participants; death from any cause: RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.28; 1 RCT, 190 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence). For PCC versus FFP for anticoagulant-associated ICH, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect on death/dependence by day 90, ICH expansion, all serious adverse events, and death from any cause between groups (death/dependence by day 90: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.90; 1 RCT, 37 participants; ICH expansion: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 36 participants; all serious adverse events: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.74; 1 RCT, 5 participants; death from any cause: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 42 participants; all very low-certainty evidence).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of automated oxygen delivery systems, embedded within a ventilator or oxygen delivery device, for preterm infants with respiratory dysfunction who require respiratory support or supplemental oxygen therapy.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and clinical trials databases without language or publication date restrictions on 23 January 2023. We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles for other potentially eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and randomised cross-over trials that compared automated oxygen delivery versus manual oxygen delivery, or that compared different automated oxygen delivery systems head-to-head, in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks' gestation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were time (%) in desired oxygen saturation (SpO2) range, all-cause in-hospital mortality by 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and neurodevelopmental outcomes at approximately two years' corrected age. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (27 reports, 457 infants), of which 13 (339 infants) contributed data to meta-analyses. We identified 13 ongoing studies. We evaluated three comparisons: automated oxygen delivery versus routine manual oxygen delivery (16 studies), automated oxygen delivery versus enhanced manual oxygen delivery with increased staffing (three studies), and one automated system versus another (two studies). Most studies were at low risk of bias for blinding of personnel and outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; and half of studies were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. However, most were at high risk of bias in an important domain specific to cross-over trials, as only two of 16 cross-over trials provided separate outcome data for each period of the intervention (before and after cross-over). Automated oxygen delivery versus routine manual oxygen delivery Automated delivery compared with routine manual oxygen delivery probably increases time (%) in the desired SpO2 range (MD 13.54%, 95% CI 11.69 to 15.39; I2 = 80%; 11 studies, 284 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed in-hospital mortality. Automated oxygen delivery compared to routine manual oxygen delivery may have little or no effect on risk of severe ROP (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.94; 1 study, 39 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes. Automated oxygen delivery versus enhanced manual oxygen delivery There may be no clear difference in time (%) in the desired SpO2 range between infants who receive automated oxygen delivery and infants who receive manual oxygen delivery (MD 7.28%, 95% CI -1.63 to 16.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 19 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed in-hospital mortality, severe ROP, or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Revised closed-loop automatic control algorithm (CLACfast) versus original closed-loop automatic control algorithm (CLACslow) CLACfast allowed up to 120 automated adjustments per hour, whereas CLACslow allowed up to 20 automated adjustments per hour. CLACfast may result in little or no difference in time (%) in the desired SpO2 range compared to CLACslow (MD 3.00%, 95% CI -3.99 to 9.99; 1 study, 19 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed in-hospital mortality, severe ROP, or neurodevelopmental outcomes. OxyGenie compared to CLiO2 Data from a single small study were presented as medians and interquartile ranges and were not suitable for meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

SEARCH METHODS: We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety.