Liver lipid accumulation is a hallmark of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), broadly associated with insulin resistance. Inositols (INS) are ubiquitous polyols implied in many physiological functions. They are produced endogenously, are present in many foods and in dietary supplements. Alterations in INS metabolism seems to play a role in diseases involving insulin resistance such as diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome. Given its role in other metabolic syndromes, the hypothesis of an INS role as a supplement in NAFLD is intriguing. We performed a systematic review of the literature to find preclinical and clinical evidence of INS supplementation efficacy in NAFLD patients. We retrieved 10 studies on animal models assessing Myoinosiol or Pinitol deficiency or supplementation and one human randomized controlled trial (RCT). Overall, INS deficiency was associated with increased fatty liver in animals. Conversely, INS supplementation in animal models of fatty liver reduced hepatic triglycerides and cholesterol accumulation and maintained a normal ultrastructural liver histopathology. In the one included RCT, Pinitol supplementation obtained similar results. Pinitol significantly reduced liver fat, post-prandial triglycerides, AST levels, lipid peroxidation increasing glutathione peroxidase activity. These results, despite being limited, indicate the need for further evaluation of INS in NAFLD in larger clinical trials.

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling condition with high prevalence in the general population. Until the recent approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (Anti-CGRP mAbs), OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) was the only treatment specifically approved for CM prophylaxis. Direct comparisons between the two treatments are not available so far. Methods: We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study in Italy to compare the real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A. Patients with CM who had received either treatment according to Italian prescribing regulations were extracted from available clinical databases. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in monthly headache days (MHD), MIgraine Disability ASsessment test (MIDAS), and monthly acute medications (MAM) evaluated at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was MHD change from baseline at 12 months. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (SAE) and treatment discontinuation. Unadjusted and adjusted models were used for the analyses. Results: Two hundred sixteen potentially eligible patients were screened; 183 (86 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 97 BoNT-A) were included. One hundred seventy-one (80 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 91 BoNT-A) and 154 (69 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 85 BoNT-A) patients were included in the efficacy analysis at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A both resulted in a mean MHD reduction at 6 (-11.5 and -7.2 days, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.3; 95%CI -6.6 to -2.0; p = 0.0003) and 12 months (-11.9 and -7.6, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.4; 95%CI -6.8 to -2.0; p = 0.0002) of follow-up. Similar results were observed after adjusting for baseline confounders. Anti-CGRP mAbs showed a significant MIDAS (-31.7 and -19.2 points, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0296, respectively) and MAM reduction (-5.1 and -3.1 administrations, p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0574, respectively) compared to BoNT-A at 6 and 12 months. No SAEs were reported. One patient receiving fremanezumab discontinued treatment due to arthralgia. Treatment discontinuations, mainly for inefficacy, were comparable. Conclusion: Both Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A were effective in CM patients with Anti-CGRP mAbs presenting higher effect magnitude, with comparable safety. Still, BoNT-A remains a valuable option for CM patients with contraindications to Anti-CGRP mAbs or for frail categories who are candidates to local therapy with limited risk of systemic administration. Graphical

Background: The evidence in the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation in children with medication‐refractory non‐degenerative monogenic dystonia is heterogeneous and long‐term results are sparse.Objectives: The objective is to describe long‐term outcomes in a single‐center cohort and compare our results with a meta‐analysis cohort form literature.Methods: We performed a retrospective single‐center cohort study including consecutive pediatric patients with non‐degenerative genetic or idiopathic dystonia treated with globus pallidus internus deep brain stimulation at our center and a systematic review and individual‐patient data meta‐analysis with the same inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the Burke‐Fahn‐Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale‐movement (BFMDRS‐M) score.Results: The clinical cohort included 25 patients with a mean study follow‐up of 11.4 years. The meta‐analysis cohort included 224 patients with a mean follow‐up of 3 years. Overall, the BFMDRS‐M mean improvements at 1 year and at last follow‐up were 41% and 33% in the clinical cohort and 58.9% and 57.2% in the meta‐analysis cohort, respectively. TOR1A‐dystonia showed the greatest and most stable BFMDRS‐M improvement in both cohorts at 1 year and at last follow‐up (76.3% and 74.3% in the clinical cohort; 69.6% and 67.3% in the meta‐analysis cohort), followed by SGCE‐dystonia (63% and 63.9% in the meta‐analysis cohort). THAP1‐dystonia (70.1% and 29.8% in the clinical cohort; 52.3% and 42.0% in the meta‐analysis cohort) and KMT2B‐dystonia (33.3% and 41.3% in the clinical cohort; 38.0% and 26.7% in the meta‐analysis cohort) showed a less pronounced or sustained response.Conclusion: Globus pallidus deep brain stimulation long‐term treatment seems effective with a possible gene‐specific differential effect. © 2024 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Background and Objective Safinamide is a novel anti-parkinsonian drug with possible anti-dyskinetic properties. Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disease. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of safinamide administration compared to placebo in PD patients on multiple outcomes. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, and trial databases were searched up to 23 December 2020 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing safinamide to placebo, alone or as add-on therapy in PD. Data were extracted from literature and regulatory agencies. Primary outcomes were ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia, OFF-time, and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) section III (UPDRS-III). Secondary outcomes included any dyskinesia rating scale (DRS), ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia, UPDRS-II, and Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39). In order to estimate mean difference (MD) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI), generic inverse variance and Mantel–Haenszel methods were used for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Analyses were performed grouping by PD with (PDwMF) or without (PDwoMF) motor fluctuations, safinamide dose, and concomitant dopaminergic treatment. Summary of findings with GRADE were performed. Results Six studies with a total of 2792 participants were identified. In PDwMF patients, safinamide 100 mg as add-on to levodopa (l-dopa) significantly increased ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia (MD = 0.95 h; 95% CI from 0.41 to 1.49), reduced OFF-time (MD = − 1.06 h; 95% CI from − 1.60 to − 0.51), and improved UPDRS-III (MD = − 2.77; 95% CI from − 4.27 to − 1.28) with moderate quality of evidence. Similar results were observed for the 50 mg dose. However, the quality of evidence was moderate only for ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia, whereas for OFF-time and UPDRS-III was low. In PDwoMF patients taking a single dopamine agonist, safinamide 100 mg resulted in little to no clinically significant improvement in UPDRS-III (MD = − 1.84; 95% CI from − 3.19 to − 0.49), with moderate quality of evidence. Conversely, in PDwoMF patients, the 200 mg and 50 mg doses showed nonsignificant improvement in UPDRS-III, with very low and moderate quality of evidence, respectively. In PDwMF patients taking safinamide 100 mg or 50 mg, nonsignificant differences were observed for ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia and DRS, with high and low quality of evidence, respectively. In the same patients, UPDRS-II was significantly improved at the 100 mg and 50 mg dose, with high and moderate quality of evidence. In PDwoMF, UPDRS-II showed a little yet significant difference only at 100 mg, with low quality of evidence. PDQ-39 resulted significantly improved only with the 100 mg dose in PDwMF, with low quality of evidence. Conclusion Overall, safinamide is effective in PDwMF patients taking l-dopa both at 100 and 50 mg daily. Evidence for efficacy in early PD is limited. Further trials are needed to better evaluate the anti-dyskinetic properties of safinamide.

Introduction The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the management of CPP has increased, since they demonstrated a possible efficacy in treating pain, especially in secondary pain conditions. However, limited evidence is available for patients with CPP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid administration in CPP. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched form the beginning up to 31 October 2021 to retrieve published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational, retrospective or prospective, studies, investigating cannabinoids in CPP. The study screening process was completed during November 2021. The primary outcome was pain reduction by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were quality of life by means of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) or other available scales, appetite, anxiety, depression, and sleep by means of any available scales. Safety was assessed with the reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and discontinuation due to adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. The weighted generic inverse variance method and Mantel–Haenszel method were used to estimate the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. For outcome measures reported with different scales (pain, anxiety, depression), we used the standardized MD (SMD) as the effect measure and then converted it into units of the VAS scale for pain, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) for anxiety, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for depression. Summary of findings was produced using GRADEproGDT. Results From 3007 identified records, we included eight articles reporting the results of eight different RCTs (four parallel and four crossover studies; seven compared to placebo and one to amitriptyline), with a total population of 240 patients. VAS pain reduction was non-significant for cannabinoids against placebo (MD = − 0.64; 95% CI − 1.30 to 0.02) or amitriptyline (MD = − 0.19; 95% CI − 0.58 to 0.19). More than 4 weeks cannabinoid treatment significantly reduced pain compared to placebo in parallel studies with more than 4 weeks of treatment duration (MD = − 1.28; 95% CI − 2.33 to − 0.22). Differences for the FIQ (MD = − 21.69; 95% CI − 46.20 to 2.82), BAI (MD = − 2.32; 95% CI − 7.99 to 3.08), and BDI (MD = 2.32; 95% CI − 1.71 to 6.35) were non-significant, likewise for discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 2.15; 95% CI 0.44–10.65), when comparing cannabinoids to placebo. The quality of the evidence was generally low mainly as a result of imprecision and risk of bias. Conclusion Cannabinoid treatment in patients with CPP had limited benefit on pain relief; however, it might improve pain with long-term administration.

Benralizumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab are novel monoclonal antibodies approved for asthma, targeting eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab is directed against IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), while mepolizumab and reslizumab are directed against IL-5. The three drugs cause a reduction in eosinophils, but benralizumab also causes a cytotoxic effect on eosinophils and basophils. Recently, it has been reported that suboptimal responders to benralizumab presented exacerbations associated with concomitant infections and sputum neutrophilia and the incidence of infections was greater in patients receiving benralizumab compared to mepolizumab and reslizumab. For this reason, we wanted to explore potential differences in terms of infectious adverse events between the three different anti-IL-5 antibodies. We performed a rapid systematic review on PubMed up to April 28, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating benralizumab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab in patients with asthma. Included outcomes were the reporting of any respiratory tract infection and any emergency department (ED) or hospital admission for infection or asthma exacerbation. A Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis was performed with Cochrane RevMan 5.4 to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). A subgroup analysis for the different active treatments was performed. From 163 references we included 21 studies reporting the results of 23 different RCTs for a total population of 9156 patients. All studies compared anti-IL-5 antibodies against placebo. Anti-IL-5 treatment resulted in non-significant differences compared to placebo in the odds for nasopharyngitis (OR = 0.90; 95 % CI from 0.76 to 1.07), pharyngitis (OR = 1.45; 95 % CI from 0.92 to 2.28), upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (OR = 0.97; 95 % CI from 0.82 to 1.15), rhinitis (OR = 1.01; 95 % CI from 0.71 to 1.44), pneumonia (OR = 0.56; 95 % CI from 0.10 to 2.01), and influenza (OR = 0.84; 95 % CI from 0.65 to 1.09). We observed significant reductions in the reporting of sinusitis (OR = 0.75; 95 % CI from 0.53 to 1.06), bronchitis (OR = 0.71; 95 % CI from 0.59 to 0.86), and ED or hospital admission due to asthma exacerbation for overall anti-IL-5 antibodies compared to placebo (OR = 0.59; 95 % CI from 0.40 to 0.88). We were not able to discriminate whether exacerbations were associated with infections or to increased sputum eosinophilia. From the subgroup analysis, we observed differences in directions and magnitudes of the effect size in the reporting of some events. Benralizumab was associated with increased odds of pharyngitis (OR = 1.56; 95 % CI from 0.97 to 2.52) and a similar trend was observed for mepolizumab in the reporting of rhinitis (OR = 1.85; 95 % CI from 0.72 to 4.78), both non-statistically significant. In terms of effect size, benralizumab also showed higher odds for bronchitis and pneumonia in comparison to mepolizumab and reslizumab (OR = 0.76, OR = 0.69, and OR = 0.60 for bronchitis and OR = 0.80, OR = 0.20, and OR = 0.45, respectively, all non-significant). Anti-IL-5 treatments might have different effects on the reporting of some infection events in patients with asthma. However, the evidence is limited by sample size and far than conclusive and suggest the need of future studies to evaluate the risk of infections in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 treatments.