Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 5;2019(9):CD001869. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001869.pub9

Vázquez 2008.

Methods Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomised trial. Two parallel groups
Participants Included 42 participants assigned to 2 treatment groups. Participants with other causes of facial palsy were excluded
Age range was 14‐82 years and the mean age was 42.5 ± 20.8 in the combined treatment group 40.1 ± 18.5 in the prednisolone group. Patients were recruited in Neurología del Hospital de Clínicas de Montevideo in Uruguay.
Inclusion criteria
  • Acute onset of facial paralysis in patients > 14 years, not associated with neurological or systemic diseases, otologic or parotid diseases, traumatic brain injury, tumours of the region or herpes zoster oticus


Exclusion criteria
  • Chronic kidney disease

  • HIV infection

  • Tuberculosis

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women

  • Hypertonus > 160/100 mmHg

  • Peptic ulcer

  • Glaucoma

  • Decompensated heart failure

  • Ramsay‐Hunt Syndrom

Interventions Randomised to receive either valaciclovir plus prednisone or prednisone plus placebo. Both groups received 1 mg/kg weight prednisone for 7 days, then reduced doses for 14 days
Participants in the treatment group received 2 g valaciclovir for 7 days
All participants undertook eye protection and received rehabilitation
Outcomes Primary outcome
  • Recovery on facial grading system (Sunnybrook scale; Ross 1996), where recovery was taken as > 90


Follow‐up at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 months. Final outcomes reported at 6 months
Adverse events were not reported
Funding Information not given
Conflicts of interest Information not given
Date conducted December 2002 to December 2003
Notes Single‐centre
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Simple randomisation, not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of participants? Unclear risk Different treatment regimens in both groups, blinding and usage of placebo not described
Blinding of assessors? Unclear risk Blinding method of the assessors not clearly described
Incomplete outcome data? Low risk All outcome data were reported
Selective outcome reporting? Unclear risk All planned outcome measures reported; authors reported synkinesis and adverse effects, but without assigning the cases to the groups
Other sources of bias? Low risk No other potential sources of bias identified