Any hypothalamic disturbance manifesting clinically is considered a major red flag for multiple sclerosis, whereas MRI lesions involving deep grey matter structures are considered an intermediate red flag. However, hypothalamic lesions manifesting clinically with hypersomnia have been described in some patients of multiple sclerosis. We report a case where the first and presenting feature of multiple sclerosis was acute onset hypersomnia with bilateral hypothalamic lesions. On review of recent literature, we also question whether clinical or radiological hypothalamic involvement is really so unusual that it should be considered a red flag for multiple sclerosis

Background: No meta-analysis has holistically analysed and summarised the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin in type 2 diabetes. The meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving diabetes patients receiving gemigliptin in the intervention arm and placebo/active comparator in the control arm. The primary outcome was change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). The secondary outcomes were alterations in glucose, glycaemic targets, lipids, insulin resistance, and adverse events. Results: Data from 10 RCTs involving 1,792 patients were analysed. Four had an active control group (ACG), with metformin/dapagliflozin/sitagliptin/glimepiride as the active comparator; six had a passive control group (PCG), with placebo/rosuvastatin as controls. HbA1c reduction by gemigliptin at 24 weeks was comparable to ACG (mean difference [MD], 0.09%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to 0.23; P=0.24; I2=0%; moderate certainty of evidence [MCE]), but superior to PCG (MD, –0.91%; 95% CI, –1.18 to –0.63); P<0.01; I2=89%; high certainty of evidence [HCE]). Gemigliptin was superior to PCG regarding achieving HbA1c <7% (12 weeks: odds ratio [OR], 5.91; 95% CI, 1.34 to 26.08; P=0.02; I2=74%; 24 weeks: OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 2.09 to 9.60; P<0.01; I2=69%; HCE). Gemigliptin was comparable to ACG regarding achieving HbA1c <7% after 24 weeks (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.63; P=0.77; I2=66%; MCE). Adverse events were similar between the gemigliptin and control groups (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36; P=0.66; I2=35%; HCE). The gemigliptin group did not have increased hypoglycaemia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.62 to 2.28; P=0.61; I2=19%; HCE). Conclusion Gemigliptin has good glycaemic efficacy and is well-tolerated over 6 months of use.

Background: No meta-analysis has holistically analysed and summarised the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin in type 2 diabetes. The meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving diabetes patients receiving gemigliptin in the intervention arm and placebo/active comparator in the control arm. The primary outcome was change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). The secondary outcomes were alterations in glucose, glycaemic targets, lipids, insulin resistance, and adverse events. Results: Data from 10 RCTs involving 1,792 patients were analysed. Four had an active control group (ACG), with metformin/dapagliflozin/sitagliptin/glimepiride as the active comparator; six had a passive control group (PCG), with placebo/rosuvastatin as controls. HbA1c reduction by gemigliptin at 24 weeks was comparable to ACG (mean difference [MD], 0.09%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to 0.23; P=0.24; I2=0%; moderate certainty of evidence [MCE]), but superior to PCG (MD, –0.91%; 95% CI, –1.18 to –0.63); P<0.01; I2=89%; high certainty of evidence [HCE]). Gemigliptin was superior to PCG regarding achieving HbA1c <7% (12 weeks: odds ratio [OR], 5.91; 95% CI, 1.34 to 26.08; P=0.02; I2=74%; 24 weeks: OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 2.09 to 9.60; P<0.01; I2=69%; HCE). Gemigliptin was comparable to ACG regarding achieving HbA1c <7% after 24 weeks (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.63; P=0.77; I2=66%; MCE). Adverse events were similar between the gemigliptin and control groups (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36; P=0.66; I2=35%; HCE). The gemigliptin group did not have increased hypoglycaemia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.62 to 2.28; P=0.61; I2=19%; HCE). Conclusion Gemigliptin has good glycaemic efficacy and is well-tolerated over 6 months of use.

Background: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has been reported to be very efficacious for treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety-related conditions. However, a review of the literature reveals the sparse use of this therapy in the field of pediatric dentistry. This study aimed to evaluate anxiety trends in pediatric dental patients during local anesthesia and extraction with and without EMDR therapy. Methods: Children in the age range of 8–12 years who required dental extractions were assigned randomly into two groups: an EMDR group (group 1) and a routine behavior management therapy group (group 2;receiving more traditional interventions such as tender love and care behavioral modeling, and distraction). Anxiety scores were recorded at four levels using the visual facial anxiety scale (VFAS) preoperatively, after therapy, after the administration of local anesthesia (LA), and after extraction. Results: Reduced anxiety was observed after the delivery of EMDR therapy, after LA administration, and post-extraction in the EMDR group compared to pre-operative anxiety scores of anxiety (P < 0.001; unpaired Student’s t and Mann-Whitney U tests). In the control group, mild reductions in anxiety after routine behavior management therapy were observed, accompanied by spikes in anxiety levels after LA and extractions. Conclusion EMDR therapy was found to be valuable for reducing anxiety among pediatric dental patients during tooth extraction procedures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the pain perception and anesthetic efficacy of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: This was a double-blind crossover study involving 48 children aged 5–10 years, who received three inferior alveolar nerve block injections in three appointments scheduled one week apart from the next. Pain on injection was assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces pain scale and the sound eye motor scale (SEM). Efficacy of anesthesia was assessed by subjective (tingling or numbness of the lip, tongue, and corner of mouth) and objective signs (pain on probing). RESULTS: Pain perception on injection assessed with Wong-Baker scale was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between buffered lignocaine and articaine (P = 0.041). The onset of anesthesia was lowest for buffered lignocaine, with a statistically significant difference between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001). Moreover, the efficacy of local analgesia assessed using objective signs was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between lignocaine and articaine. CONCLUSION: Buffered lignocaine was the least painful and the most efficacious anesthetic agent during the inferior alveolar nerve block injection in 5–10-year-old patients.
Analgesia ; Anesthesia ; Appointments and Schedules ; Buffers ; Carticaine ; Child ; Cross-Over Studies ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Hypesthesia ; Lidocaine ; Lip ; Mandibular Nerve ; Pain Perception ; Tongue

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Purpose: Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been evaluated in children with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and several other nondiabetic conditions. Potential tolerability issues have prevented the routine use of SGLT2i in children with diabetes. However, no meta-analysis to date has evaluated the safety and tolerability of SGLT2i in children. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this knowledge gap. Methods: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case control, and cohort studies involving children receiving SGLT2i in the intervention-arm. Primary outcome was occurrence of treatment emergent adverse events (TAEs). Secondary outcomes were evaluation of glycemic efficacy and occurrence of severe adverse events (SAEs), hypoglycemia, ketosis, genital or urinary infections, and any other adverse events. Results: From the 27 articles initially screened, data from 4 RCTs (258 children) were analyzed. In children with T2DM, occurrence of TAEs (odds ratio [OR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–3.36; P=0.08; I2=0%), SAEs (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.08–2.54; P=0.37; I2=0%), ketoacidosis (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.01–8.37; P=0.50), urinary tract infections (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.44–12.50; P=0.32; I2=0%), and severe hypoglycemia (OR, 4.47; 95% CI, 0.21–96.40; P=0.34) were comparable among the SGLTi group and placebo. Compared to placebo, T2DM children receiving SGLTi had significantly lower glycosylated hemoglobin at 24–26 weeks (mean difference [MD], -0.79%; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.26; P=0.004; I2=0%). In T1DM children, β-hydroxybutyrate levels were significantly higher in the SGLTi group than the placebo group (MD, 0.11 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.05–0.17; P=0.0005; I2=53%). In T1DM, there was not a single report of an SAE, ketoacidosis, or severe hypoglycemia in either the placebo or treatment groups, but time-in-range was considerably greater in the SGLT2i group than the placebo group (68%±6% vs. 50%±13%, P<0.001). Conclusion SGLT2i use in children and young adults appears to be both safe and tolerable based on our meta-analyses and review of the literature.

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.