IMPORTANCEA study published in 2000 showed that more than one-third of adults with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This study evaluates overall treatment outcomes in light of the introduction of more than 1 dozen new AEDs in the past 2 decades. OBJECTIVE To assess long-term treatment outcome in patients with newly diagnosed and treated epilepsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis longitudinal observational cohort study was conducted at the Epilepsy Unit of the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland. A total of 1795 individuals who were newly treated for epilepsy with AEDs between July 1, 1982, and October 31, 2012, were included in this analysis. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years (until October 31, 2014) or until death, whichever came sooner. Data analysis was completed between March 2015 and May 2016.EXPOSURES Treatment with antiepileptic drugs for patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Seizure control was assessed at the end of the study period. Probability of achieving 1-year seizure freedom was estimated for each AED regimen prescribed. Multivariable models assessed the associations between risk factors and AED treatment outcome after adjustments were made for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGDs) among patients infected with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the preprint server MedRxiv from their inception until May 11, 2020, using the terms anosmia or hyposmia or dysosmia or olfactory dysfunction or olfaction disorder or smell dysfunction or ageusia or hypogeusia or dysgeusia or taste dysfunction or gustatory dysfunction or neurological and COVID-19 or 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2. The references of included studies were also manually screened. Only studies involving patients with diagnostic-confirmed COVID-19 infection were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-four studies with data from 8438 patients with test-confirmed COVID-19 infection from 13 countries were included. The pooled proportions of patients presenting with olfactory dysfunction and gustatory dysfunction were 41.0% (95% CI, 28.5% to 53.9%) and 38.2% (95% CI, 24.0% to 53.6%), respectively. Increasing mean age correlated with lower prevalence of olfactory (coefficient ¼ À0.076; P¼.02) and gustatory (coefficient ¼ À0.073; P¼.03) dysfunctions. There was a higher prevalence of olfactory dysfunctions with the use of objective measurements compared with self-reports (coefficient ¼ 2.33; P¼.01). No significant moderation of the prevalence of OGDs by sex was observed. Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of OGDs among patients infected with COVID-19. Routine screening for these conditions could contribute to improved case detection in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, to better inform population screening measures, further studies are needed to establish causality.

No abstract

and PV Desmond have no conflicts of interest to declare. P De Cruz has received travel grant support from Abbott and Schering-Plough. MA Kamm has acted as an advisor to Abbott and Janssen, has received research support from Abbott, and has acted as a speaker at symposiums sponsored by Abbott and Janssen. A Hamilton has received an educational grant from Abbott. D Liew has served on advisory boards and received research grants from Abbott. IC Lawrance has been on an advisory board for Abbott and Janssen, a speaker for Abbott and Janssen, and has held research and travel grants from Abbott and Janssen. JM Andrews has been an advisory board member for both Janssen and Abbott, spoken for both Abbott and Janssen, received research funds from both Abbott and Janssen, and received travel grants from both Abbott and Janssen. PA Bampton has been on advisory boards for Janssen and Abbott, has received research funding from Abbott, and travel sponsorship from both Abbott and Janssen. PR Gibson has received consulting fees from Abbott, Janssen, and Schering-Plough; research support from Abbott; and payments for lectures from Abbott and Janssen. FA Macrae has been on an advisory board to Janssen, has received travel grants from Abbott, and has received clinical research support from Janssen, Abbott and MSD. W Selby has been on an advisory board for Abbott. SJ Bell has received travel assistance from Abbott. SJ Brown has received travel support and speaker fees from both Abbott and Janssen. WR Connell has been on advisory board for Janssen and a speaker for Abbott and Janssen. AS Day has been an M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT advisor to Janssen. RB Gearry has been on an advisory board for Abbott and Janssen, a speaker for Abbott and Janssen, and held research, educational and travel grants from Abbott and Janssen.

No abstract

We carried out a prospective, continuous study on 529 patients who underwent primary total knee replacement between January 2006 and December 2007 at a major teaching hospital. The aim was to investigate weight change and the functional and clinical outcome in non-obese and obese groups at 12 months post-operatively. The patients were grouped according to their pre-operative body mass index (BMI) as follows: non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), obese (BMI (3) 30 to 39 kg/m(2)) and morbidly obese (BMI > 40 kg/m(2)). The clinical outcome data were available for all patients and functional outcome data for 521 (98.5%). Overall, 318 (60.1%) of the patients were obese or morbidly obese. At 12 months, a clinically significant weight loss of > or =5% had occurred in 40 (12.6%) of the obese patients, but 107 (21%) gained weight. The change in the International Knee Society score was less in obese and morbidly obese compared with non-obese patients (p = 0.016). Adverse events occurred in 30 (14.2%) of the non-obese, 59 (22.6%) of the obese and 20 (35.1%) of the morbidly obese patients (p = 0.001).

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of goal focused telephone coaching by practice nurses in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia.Design Prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practices as the unit of randomisation.Setting General practices in Victoria, Australia.Participants 59 of 69 general practices that agreed to participate recruited sufficient patients and were randomised. Of 829 patients with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% in the past 12 months) who were assessed for eligibility, 473 (236 from 30 intervention practices and 237 from 29 control practices) agreed to participate.Intervention Practice nurses from intervention practices received two days of training in a telephone coaching programme, which aimed to deliver eight telephone and one face to face coaching episodes per patient.Main outcome measures The primary end point was mean absolute change in HbA1c between baseline and 18 months in the intervention group compared with the control group.Results The intervention and control patients were similar at baseline. None of the practices dropped out over the study period; however, patient attrition rates were 5% in each group (11/236 and 11/237 in the intervention and control group, respectively). The median number of coaching sessions received by the 236 intervention patients was 3 (interquartile range 1-5), of which 25% (58/236) did not receive any coaching sessions. At 18 months’ follow-up the effect on glycaemic control did not differ significantly (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval −0.20 to 0.24, P=0.84) between the intervention and control groups, adjusted for HbA1c measured at baseline and the clustering. Other biochemical and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups.Conclusions A practice nurse led telephone coaching intervention implemented in the real world primary care setting produced comparable outcomes to usual primary care in Australia. The addition of a goal focused coaching role onto the ongoing generalist role of a practice nurse without prescribing rights was found to be ineffective.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50662837.

This study provides Class IV evidence that RRs are not higher in patients with multiple sclerosis switching to fingolimod from natalizumab compared to those patients switching to fingolimod from other therapies.