scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Cerebrolysin for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danfeng Zhang ◽  
Yan Dong ◽  
Ya Li ◽  
Jigang Chen ◽  
Junyu Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Safety Outcomes

Cerebrolysin was reported to be effective in the neurological improvement of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in experimental models, while data from clinical trials were inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of cerebrolysin for AIS. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials, which intervened within 72 hours after the stroke onset. We investigated the efficacy and safety outcomes, respectively. Risk ratios and mean differences were pooled with fixed-effects model or random-effects model. Seven studies were identified, involving 1779 patients with AIS. The summary results failed to demonstrate significant superiority of cerebrolysin in the assessment of efficacy outcomes of mRS and BI. Similarly, administration of cerebrolysin had neutral effects on safety outcomes compared with placebo, including mortality and SAE. However, the number of included studies was small, especially in the analysis of efficacy outcomes, which might cause publication bias and inaccurate between-studies variance in the meta-analysis. Conclusively, although it seemed to be safe, routine use of cerebrolysin to improve the long-term rehabilitation after stroke could not be supported by available evidence.

Mechanical Thrombectomy with or without Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis for Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Hang Li ◽  
Siyuan Yang ◽  
Yi Zhong ◽  
Jiahe Wang ◽  
Xiang Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Anterior Circulation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The combination of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is more effective than IVT alone in patients with large vessel occlusion, which has been proven in recent studies. However, there are still debates over whether IVT benefits patients treated with only direct mechanical thrombectomy (dMT). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched on June 15, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Seven RCTs with 2,143 patients were enrolled in our study. <b><i>Results:</i></b> MT combined with IVT had comparable efficacy and safety outcome compared with dMT in proximal anterior circulation occlusion at 90 days. For the primary outcome, pooled data showed no significant difference in the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2 at 90 days between the dMT and MT+IVT groups (pooled odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.79, 1.17, <i>p</i> = 0.39). As for the mRS score 0–1 at 90 days, the degree of benefit conferred by dMT was substantial: for every 100 patients treated, the number of patients which had an excellent outcome in the dMT group was 10 higher than that of the MT+IVT group. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In this meta-analysis including 7 RCTs, MT had comparable consequences to bridging treatment in efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with ischemic stroke caused by the occlusion of proximal anterior circulation, irrespective of geographical location. These findings support the adoption of dMT in acute ischemic stroke treatments and have higher cost-effectiveness in global applications.

Efficacy and Safety of Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying-Ying Zhang ◽  
Rong Zhou ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety Outcome ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Safety Outcomes

Abstract Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing side effect during opioid analgesia and is mainly mediated by gastrointestinal μ opioid receptors. Methylnaltrexone, a peripheral μ opioid receptor antagonist with restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, may alleviate OIC without reversing analgesia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of OIC.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared methylnaltrexone with placebo for the treatment of OIC. The primary efficacy outcome was rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within 4 hours after the first dose. Secondary efficacy outcomes included RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose, RFBM ≥3 times per week, and need take rescue laxatives. The primary safety outcome was any adverse events. Secondary safety outcomes included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random-effects model with the intention-to-treat principle. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eight trials with 2,034 participants were included. Compared with placebo, methylnaltrexone significantly increased RFBM within 4 hours after the first dose (8 trials; 1,833 participants; RR 3.74, 95% CI 3.02-4.62; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence), RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose (2 trials; 614 participants; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.52-2.58; I2 = 9%; moderate-certainty evidence), and RFBM ≥3 times per week (3 trials; 1,396 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and decreased need to take rescue laxatives (3 trials; 807 participants; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For safety outcomes, there was no difference in any adverse events between the two groups (8 trials; 2,034 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.23; I2 = 34%; moderate-certainty evidence), including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence; but for the most commonly reported adverse events, the abdominal pain was higher in methylnaltrexone group than that in placebo group (6 trials; 1,813 participants; RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.29-4.08; I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence).Conclusions: Methylnaltrexone is an effective and safe drug for treating OIC. But the safety of abdominal pain should be considered.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020187290).

scholarly journals Is Fluoxetine Good for Subacute Stroke? A Meta-Analysis Evidenced From Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guangjie Liu ◽  
Xingyu Yang ◽  
Tao Xue ◽  
Shujun Chen ◽  
Xin Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Subacute Stroke

Background and Purpose: Fluoxetine is a drug commonly used to treat mental disorders, such as depression and obsessive–compulsive disorder, and some studies have shown that fluoxetine can improve motor and function recovery after stroke. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine in the treatment of post-stroke neurological recovery.Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were performed to assess the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine for functional and motor recovery in subacute stroke patients up to October 2020. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to assess the data. The risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were analyzed and calculated with a fixed effects model.Results: We pooled 6,788 patients from nine RCTs. The primary endpoint was modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Fluoxetine did not change the proportion of mRS ≤ 2 (P = 0.47). The secondary endpoints were Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale (FMMS), Barthel Index (BI), and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Fluoxetine improved the FMMS (P &lt; 0.00001) and BI(P &lt; 0.0001) and showed a tendency of improving NIHSS (P = 0.08). In addition, we found that fluoxetine reduced the rate of new-onset depression (P &lt; 0.0001) and new antidepressants (P &lt; 0.0001).Conclusion: In post-stroke treatment, fluoxetine did not improve participants' mRS and NIHSS but improved FMMS and BI. This difference could result from heterogeneities between the trials: different treatment duration, clinical scales sensitivity, patient age, delay of inclusion, and severity of the deficit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document