To assess the short-term and long-term comparative efficacy and safety of ASMs for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS).
Following a systematic literature search, randomized controlled trial (RCT) and open-label extension (OLE) studies on LGS comparing ASMs with placebo or other ASMs were included. ≥50% reduction in drop seizure frequency from baseline and occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. For short-term outcomes, a network meta-analysis (NMA) reporting odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and hierarchy of competing interventions [surface under the cumulative ranking curve(SUCRA)] was done. Long-term outcomes were reported as proportion with 95% CIs using the random-effects model.
Fifteen studies including 1263 participants with LGS (aged 2-54years) receiving any of six ASMs [cannabidiol (CBD), clobazam (CLB), felbamate (FLB), lamotrigine (LTG), rufinamide (RFM), topiramate (TPM)] or placebo were included. High-dose CLB (1.0 mg/kg/day; CLB_H) [OR: 4.9; 95% CI: 2.3-10.8] was significantly associated with ≥50% reduction in drop seizure frequency as compared with placebo, and achieved the highest-ranking probability (0.89) based on SUCRA values (although there was an overlap between confidence intervals of effect sizes of CLB, RFM and CBD), while high-dose CBD (20 mg/kg/day; CBD_H) [OR: 3.8; 95% CI:1.6-9.0] had significantly higher odds for occurrence of any TEAEs and had the highest-ranking probability (0.85). Furthermore, the long-term treatment with CLB [78%; 95% CI: 70-85%] was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with reduction in drop-seizures, and long-term use of CBD [96%; 95% CI: 95-98%] was associated with a higher frequency of TEAEs.
The study findings suggest that CLB_H, CBD and RFM are the most efficacious and safest in terms of both short and long-term outcomes with CLB_H probably leading the hierarchy. Future head-to-head trials comparing these ASMs are needed.

Short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications in Lennox Gastaut syndrome: A network meta-analysis.

Previous observational studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding associations between red/processed meat intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Some studies have suggested positive relationships, while others have demonstrated no significant associations. However, causal effects remain uncertain. This 2023 Mendelianrandomization (MR) study investigated the causal relationship between red and processed meat (porkmeat, mutton meat, beef meat)intake and CVD risk by analyzing summary data from the UK Biobank (exposure), CARDIoGRAMplusC4D (coronary artery disease [CAD]), MEGASTROKE (stroke), Nielsen et al. (atrial fibrillation [AF]), HERMES (heart failure [HF]), and FinnGen (cardiovascular outcomes) public databases.
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of red meat (pork, beef, and mutton) and processed meat were sourced from the United Kingdom (UK) Biobank. GWAS data on CVD for this study were obtained from the Gene and FinnGen consortia. The primary method employed for the two-sample MR analysis was inverse variance weighting (IVW). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the reliability and consistency of the results.
Genetically predicted red and processed meat consumption did not demonstrate a causal association with any CVD outcomes when employing the IVW method. For processed meat intake, the odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence intervals CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.88 (0.56-1.39) for CAD, 0.91 (0.65-1.27) for AF, 0.84 (0.58-1.21) for HF, and 1.00 (0.75-1.05) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.15 (0.83-1.59) for CAD, 1.25 (0.75-2.07) for AF, 1.09 (0.73-1.64) for HF, and 1.27 (0.85-1.91) for stroke. For beef intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.70 (0.28-1.73) for CAD, 0.85 (0.49-1.49) for AF, 0.80 (0.35-1.83) for HF, and 1.29 (0.85-1.95) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 2.01 (0.75-5.39) for CAD, 1.83 (0.60-5.56) for AF, 0.80 (0.30-2.13) for HF, and 1.30 (0.62-2.73) for stroke. For pork intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 1.25 (0.37-4.22) for CAD, 1.26 (0.73-2.15) for AF, 1.71 (0.86-3.39) for HF, and 1.15 (0.63-2.11) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.12 (0.43-2.88) for CAD, 0.39 (0.08-1.83) for AF, 0.62 (0.20-1.88) for HF, and 0.60 (0.21-1.65) for stroke. For mutton intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.84 (0.48-1.44) for CAD, 0.84 (0.56-1.26) for AF, 1.04 (0.65-1.67) for HF, and 1.06 (0.77-1.45) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.20 (0.65-2.21) for CAD, 0.92 (0.44-1.92) for AF, 0.74 (0.34-1.58) for HF, and 0.75 (0.45-1.24) for stroke. The results remained robust and consistent in both the meta-analysis and supplementary MR analysis.
This MR study demonstrated no significant causal relationships between red/processed meat intake and the risk of the four CVD outcomes examined. Further investigation is warranted to confirm these findings.

Papers