Gangliosides for acute ischaemic stroke

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from porcine brain, which has potential neuroprotective properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and last updated in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like agents for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, and LILACS in May 2022 and a number of Russian databases in June 2022. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like agents started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any length of time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria to the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1773 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. In this update we added one RCT of Cerebrolysin-like agent Cortexin, which contributed 272 participants. We used the same approach for risk of bias assessment that was re-evaluated for the previous update: we added consideration of the public availability of study protocols and reported outcomes to the selective outcome reporting judgement, through identification, examination, and evaluation of study protocols. For the Cerebrolysin studies, we judged the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting to be unclear across all studies; for blinding of participants and personnel to be low in three studies and unclear in the remaining four; and for blinding of outcome assessors to be low in three studies and unclear in four studies. We judged the risk of bias for generation of allocation sequence to be low in one study and unclear in the remaining six studies; for allocation concealment to be low in one study and unclear in six studies; and for incomplete outcome data to be low in three studies and high in the remaining four studies. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin supported three multicentre studies, either totally, or by providing Cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians. We judged two studies to be at high risk of other bias and the remaining five studies to be at unclear risk of other bias. We judged the study of Cortexin to be at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and at unclear risk of bias for all other domains. All-cause death: Cerebrolysin or Cortexin probably result in little to no difference in all-cause death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.41; 6 trials, 1689 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on poor functional outcome, defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period, early death (within two weeks of stroke onset), quality of life, or time to restoration of capacity for work. Only one study clearly reported on the cause of death: cerebral infarct (four in the Cerebrolysin and two in the placebo group), heart failure (two in the Cerebrolysin and one in the placebo group), pulmonary embolism (two in the placebo group), and pneumonia (one in the placebo group). Non-death attrition (secondary outcome): Cerebrolysin or similar peptide mixtures may result in little to no difference in non-death attrition, but the evidence is very uncertain, with a considerable level of heterogeneity (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.39; 6 trials, 1689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events (SAEs): Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in the total number of people with SAEs (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.66; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This comprised fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and an increase in the total number of people with non-fatal SAEs (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.23; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of dosing schedule 30 mL for 10 days (cumulative dose 300 mL), the increase was more prominent (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 2 trials, 1189 participants). Total number of people with adverse events: Cerebrolysin or similar peptide mixtures may result in little to no difference in the total number of people with adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; 4 trials, 1607 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like peptide mixtures derived from cattle brain probably have no beneficial effect on preventing all-cause death in acute ischaemic stroke. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that Cerebrolysin probably has no beneficial effect on the total number of people with serious adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence also indicates a potential increase in non-fatal serious adverse events with Cerebrolysin use.

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from porcine brain that has potential neuroprotective properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, LILACS, OpenGrey, and a number of Russian databases in October 2019. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Cerebrolysin, started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any length of time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria to the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1601 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. In this update we re-evaluated risk of bias through identification, examination, and evaluation of study protocols and judged it to be low, unclear, or high across studies: unclear for all domains in one study, and unclear for selective outcome reporting across all studies; low for blinding of participants and personnel in four studies and unclear in the remaining three; low for blinding of outcome assessors in three studies and unclear in four studies. We judged risk of bias to be low in two studies and unclear in the remaining five studies for generation of allocation sequence; low in one study and unclear in six studies for allocation concealment; and low in one study, unclear in one study, and high in the remaining five studies for incomplete outcome data. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin supported four multicentre studies, either totally, or by providing Cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians. We judged three studies to be at high risk of other bias and the remaining four studies to be at unclear risk of other bias. All-cause death: we extracted data from six trials (1517 participants). Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in all-cause death: risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.32 (6 trials, 1517 participants, moderate-quality evidence). None of the included trials reported on poor functional outcome defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period or early death (within two weeks of stroke onset), or time to restoration of capacity for work and quality of life. Only one trial clearly reported on the cause of death: cerebral infarct (four in the Cerebrolysin and two in the placebo group), heart failure (two in the Cerebrolysin and one in the placebo group), pulmonary embolism (two in the placebo group), and pneumonia (one in the placebo group). Serious adverse events (SAEs): Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in the total number of people with SAEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, 4 RCTs, 1435 participants, moderate-quality evidence). This comprised fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38) and an increase in the total number of people with non-fatal SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.55, P = 0.047, 4 trials, 1435 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the subgroup of dosing schedule 30 mL for 10 days (cumulative dose 300 mL), the increase was more prominent: RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.66, P = 0.01 (2 trials, 1189 participants). Total number of people with adverse events: four trials reported on this outcome. Cerebrolysin may result in little to no difference in the total number of people with adverse events: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, P = 0.90, 4 trials, 1435 participants, low-quality evidence. Non-death attrition: evidence from six trials involving 1517 participants suggests that Cerebrolysin results in little to no difference in non-death attrition, with 96 out of 764 Cerebrolysin-treated participants and 117 out of 753 placebo-treated participants being lost to follow-up for reasons other than death (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence indicates that Cerebrolysin probably has little or no beneficial effect on preventing all-cause death in acute ischaemic stroke, or on the total number of people with serious adverse events. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates a potential increase in non-fatal serious adverse events with Cerebrolysin use.

GM1 Oligosaccharide Crosses the Human Blood-Brain Barrier In Vitro by a Paracellular Route

Ganglioside GM1 (GM1) has been reported to functionally recover degenerated nervous system in vitro and in vivo, but the possibility to translate GM1′s potential in clinical settings is counteracted by its low ability to overcome the blood–brain barrier (BBB) due to its amphiphilic nature. Interestingly, the soluble and hydrophilic GM1-oligosaccharide (OligoGM1) is able to punctually replace GM1 neurotrophic functions alone, both in vitro and in vivo. In order to take advantage of OligoGM1 properties, which overcome GM1′s pharmacological limitations, here we characterize the OligoGM1 brain transport by using a human in vitro BBB model. OligoGM1 showed a 20-fold higher crossing rate than GM1 and time–concentration-dependent transport. Additionally, OligoGM1 crossed the barrier at 4 °C and in inverse transport experiments, allowing consideration of the passive paracellular route. This was confirmed by the exclusion of a direct interaction with the active ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters using the “pump out” system. Finally, after barrier crossing, OligoGM1 remained intact and able to induce Neuro2a cell neuritogenesis by activating the TrkA pathway. Importantly, these in vitro data demonstrated that OligoGM1, lacking the hydrophobic ceramide, can advantageously cross the BBB in comparison with GM1, while maintaining its neuroproperties. This study has improved the knowledge about OligoGM1′s pharmacological potential, offering a tangible therapeutic strategy.

GM1 Ganglioside Is A Key Factor in Maintaining the Mammalian Neuronal Functions Avoiding Neurodegeneration

Many species of ganglioside GM1, differing for the sialic acid and ceramide content, have been characterized and their physico-chemical properties have been studied in detail since 1963. Scientists were immediately attracted to the GM1 molecule and have carried on an ever-increasing number of studies to understand its binding properties and its neurotrophic and neuroprotective role. GM1 displays a well balanced amphiphilic behavior that allows to establish strong both hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions. The peculiar structure of GM1 reduces the fluidity of the plasma membrane which implies a retention and enrichment of the ganglioside in specific membrane domains called lipid rafts. The dynamism of the GM1 oligosaccharide head allows it to assume different conformations and, in this way, to interact through hydrogen or ionic bonds with a wide range of membrane receptors as well as with extracellular ligands. After more than 60 years of studies, it is a milestone that GM1 is one of the main actors in determining the neuronal functions that allows humans to have an intellectual life. The progressive reduction of its biosynthesis along the lifespan is being considered as one of the causes underlying neuronal loss in aged people and severe neuronal decline in neurodegenerative diseases. In this review, we report on the main knowledge on ganglioside GM1, with an emphasis on the recent discoveries about its bioactive component.

Clinical Characteristics of Intravenous Injection of Monosialotetrahexosyl Ganglioside Sodium-Related Guillain-Barre Syndrome

Introduction: Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) is an acute inflammatory immune-mediated multiple nerve root neuropathy. GBS primarily damages the spinal nerve root and peripheral nerves, but can also affect the cranial nerves and cause acute demyelination. This study analyzed the clinical features of intravenous injection of monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside sodium-related Guillain-Barre syndrome (GRD-GBS). Methods: We retrospectively studied 12 patients who developed GRD-GBS after receiving monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside sodium treatment in association with recent trauma, surgery, acute cerebrovascular disease, or chronic peripheral neuropathy. Clinical characteristics, electrophysiological examinations, serum-specific antibodies, and prognosis were assessed. As controls, we selected 12 patients hospitalized with non-ganglioside-related (NGRD)-GBS. Results: The positive rate of the ganglioside antibody test was significantly higher in the GRD-GBS group (66.67%) than in the NGRD-GBS group (8.33%). CSF protein levels were similar between the groups, but the incidence of blood-nerve-barrier (BNB) disruption was higher in the GRD-GBS group. Patient scores for the Hughes Functional Grading Scale (HFGS), a disability scale, were higher (more severe disability) in the GRD-GBS group than in the NGRD-GBS group. The HFGS scores of the GRD-GBS group did not change between peak onset and 30 days after discharge, but did change significantly by 90 days after discharge, while scores were significantly lower at both 30 and 90 days after discharge in the NGRD-GBS group. Conclusions: GRD-GBS patients showed more severe clinical manifestations, poorer prognosis, and slower recovery than patients with NGRD-GBS. Ganglioside treatment should be used with extreme caution in patients with trauma that damages the BNB.

Pathophysiology of Ganglioside GM1 in Ischemic Stroke: Ganglioside GM1: A Critical Review

Ganglioside GM1 is a member of the ganglioside family which has been used in many countries and is thought of as a promising alternative treatment for preventing several neurological diseases, including cerebral ischemic injury. The therapeutic effects of GM1 have been proved both in neonates and in adults following ischemic brain damage; however, its clinical efficacy in patients with ischemic stroke is still uncertain. This review examines the recent knowledge of the neuroprotective properties of GM1 in ischemic stroke, collected in the past two decades. We conclude that GM1 may have potential for stroke treatment, although we need to be cautious in respect of its complications.

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists for acute stroke

BACKGROUND

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebrovascular disease. However, the sedative effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in people with acute stroke, due to the potential risk of stupor. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013, and previously updated in 2014 and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (accessed May 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2018, Issue 4 (accessed May 2018), MEDLINE (from 1949 to May 2018), Embase (from 1980 to May 2018), CINAHL (from 1982 to May 2018), AMED (from 1985 to May 2018), and 11 Chinese databases (accessed May 2018). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trial registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for people with acute stroke (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the primary outcomes of efficacy and safety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 3838 participants (acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke patients, 3758 analyzed). Most of the participants recruited had acute ischaemic stroke, with limited data available from participants with other stroke subtypes, including total anterior circulation syndrome (TACS). The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with an unclear risk for selection bias only. For death and dependency at three months, pooled results did not find a significant difference for chlormethiazole versus placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.11; four trials; 2909 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and for diazepam versus placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; one trial; 849 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The most frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95; two trials; 2527 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46; two trials; 2527 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides moderate-quality evidence that fails to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of people with acute stroke. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of participants with total anterior circulation syndrome are required to determine if there are benefits for this subgroup. Somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from pigs' brain tissue, which has potential neuroprotective and neurotrophic properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2016 we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, LILACS, OpenGrey, and a number of Russian Databases. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, and contacted the manufacturer of cerebrolysin, EVER Neuro Pharma GmbH (formerly Ebewe Pharma).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cerebrolysin, started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (1501 participants) that met the inclusion criteria.We evaluated risk of bias and judged it to be unclear for generation of allocation sequence in four studies and low in two studies; unclear for allocation concealment in five studies and low in one study; high for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) in five studies and unclear in one study; unclear for blinding; high for selective reporting in four studies and unclear in two; and high for other sources of bias in three studies and unclear in the rest. The manufacturer of cerebrolysin, pharmaceutical company EVER Neuro Pharma, supported three multi-centre studies, either totally, or providing cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians.None of the included trials reported on poor functional outcome defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period or early death (within two weeks of stroke onset).All-cause death: we extracted data from five trials (1417 participants). There was no difference in the number of deaths: 46/714 in cerebrolysin group versus 47/703 in placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.91 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.35 (5 trials, 1417 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Serious adverse events (SAEs): there was no significant difference in the total number of SAEs with cerebrolysin (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.67). This comprised no difference in fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38) and an increase in the number of people with non-fatal SAEs (20/667 with cerebrolysin and 8/668 with placebo: RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.58, P = 0.03) (3 trials, 1335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Total number of people with adverse events: three trials reported on this. There was no difference in the total number of people with adverse events: 308/667 in cerebrolysin group versus 307/668 in placebo group; RR 0.97 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, random-effects model (3 trials, 1335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this Cochrane Review do not demonstrate clinical benefits of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke. We found moderate-quality evidence of an increase in non-fatal SAEs with cerebrolysin use but not in total SAEs.

Targeting oxidative stress for the treatment of ischemic stroke: Upstream and downstream therapeutic strategies

Excessive oxygen and its chemical derivatives, namely reactive oxygen species (ROS), produce oxidative stress that has been known to lead to cell injury in ischemic stroke. ROS can damage macromolecules such as proteins and lipids and leads to cell autophagy, apoptosis, and necrosis to the cells. This review describes studies on the generation of ROS, its role in the pathogenesis of ischemic stroke, and recent development in therapeutic strategies in reducing oxidative stress after ischemic stroke.

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from pigs' brain tissue, which has potential neuroprotective and neurotrophic properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2016 we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, LILACS, OpenGrey, and a number of Russian Databases. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, and contacted the manufacturer of cerebrolysin, EVER Neuro Pharma GmbH (formerly Ebewe Pharma).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cerebrolysin, started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (1501 participants) that met the inclusion criteria.We evaluated risk of bias and judged it to be unclear for generation of allocation sequence in four studies and low in two studies; unclear for allocation concealment in five studies and low in one study; high for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) in five studies and unclear in one study; unclear for blinding; high for selective reporting in four studies and unclear in two; and high for other sources of bias in three studies and unclear in the rest. The manufacturer of cerebrolysin, pharmaceutical company EVER Neuro Pharma, supported three multi-centre studies, either totally, or providing cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians.None of the included trials reported on poor functional outcome defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period or early death (within two weeks of stroke onset).All-cause death: we extracted data from five trials (1417 participants). There was no difference in the number of deaths: 46/714 in cerebrolysin group versus 47/703 in placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.91 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.35 (5 trials, 1417 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Serious adverse events: two trials reported on this outcome, with 90% confidence cerebrolysin increased the risks of serious adverse events by at least one third compared to placebo: 62/589 in cerebrolysin group versus 46/600 in placebo group; RR 1.37 90% CI 1.01 to 1.86 (2 trials, 1189 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Total number of people with adverse events: three trials reported on this. There was no difference in the total number of people with adverse events: 308/667 in cerebrolysin group versus 307/668 in placebo group; RR 0.97 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, random-effects model (3 trials, 1335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this Cochrane Review do not demonstrate clinical benefits of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke. We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting that serious adverse events may be more common with cerebrolysin use in acute ischaemic stroke.

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists for acute stroke

BACKGROUND

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebrovascular disease. However, the sedative effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in people with acute stroke, due to the potential risk of stupor. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013, and previously updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (accessed March 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 3, part of the Cochrane Library (accessed March 2016), MEDLINE (from 1949 to March 2016), Embase (from 1980 to March 2016), CINAHL (from 1982 to March 2016), AMED (from 1985 to March 2016), and 11 Chinese databases (accessed March 2016). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for people with acute stroke (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the primary outcomes of efficacy and safety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 3838 participants (3758 analyzed). The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with an unclear risk for selection bias only. Four trials (N = 2909) measured death and dependency at three months for chlormethiazole versus placebo; pooled results did not find a significant difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.11). One trial (N = 849) measured this outcome for diazepam versus placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07). The most frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95; two trials; N = 2527) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46; two trials; N = 2527).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides moderate-quality evidence that fails to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of people with acute stroke. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of participants with total anterior circulation syndrome are required to determine if there are benefits for this subgroup. Somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from pigs' brain tissue, which has potential neuroprotective and neurotrophic properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of Cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to November 2014), Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index (1940 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014), OpenGrey (1980 to December 2014), and a number of Russian Databases (1998 to December 2014). We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, and contacted the manufacturer of Cerebrolysin, EVER Neuro Pharma GmbH (formerly Ebewe Pharma).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing Cerebrolysin started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for at least two weeks with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial involving 146 participants. We evaluated risk of bias and judged it to be high for generation of allocation sequence, low for allocation concealment, high for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), unclear for blinding, high for selective reporting and high for other sources of bias. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin, pharmaceutical company Ebewe, provided Cerebrolysin and the placebo, as well as the randomisation codes. There was no difference in the number of deaths (6/78 in Cerebrolysin group versus 6/68 in placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 2.58) or in the total number of adverse events (16.4% versus 10.3%; RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.82) between the treatment and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Routine administration of Cerebrolysin to people with acute ischaemic stroke cannot be supported by the available evidence from RCTs.

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists for acute stroke

BACKGROUND

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebral ischemia. However, the sedation effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in acute stroke patients due to the potential risk of stupor.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1949 to June 2014), EMBASE (1980 to June 2014), CINAHL (1982 to June 2014), AMED (1985 to June 2014) and 11 Chinese databases (June 2014). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for acute stroke patients (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the outcomes of death or dependency, functional independence and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 3838 patients. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with low risk of bias. Four trials measured death and dependency at three months in chlormethiazole versus placebo without significant difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.11). One trial measured this outcome between diazepam and placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07). In the subgroup analysis of total anterior circulation syndrome (TACS), a higher percentage of functional independence was found in the chlormethiazole group (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64). The frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide the evidence to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Chlormethiazole appeared to be beneficial in improving functional independence in patients with TACS according to the subgroup analysis, but this result must be interpreted with great caution. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of TACS would be required for further confirmation. However, somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists for acute stroke

BACKGROUND

Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebral ischemia. However, the sedation effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in acute stroke patients due to the potential risk of stupor.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1949 to March 2012), EMBASE (1980 to March 2012), CINAHL (1982 to March 2012), AMED (1985 to March 2012) and 11 Chinese databases (March 2012). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for acute stroke patients (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the outcomes of death or dependency, functional independence and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 3838 patients. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with low risk of bias. Four trials measured death and dependency at three months in chlormethiazole versus placebo without significant difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.11). One trial measured this outcome between diazepam and placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07). In the subgroup analysis of total anterior circulation syndrome (TACS), a higher percentage of functional independence was found in the chlormethiazole group (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64). The frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide the evidence to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Chlormethiazole appeared to be beneficial in improving functional independence in patients with TACS according to the subgroup analysis, but this result must be interpreted with great caution. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of TACS would be required for further confirmation. However, somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.

The failure of animal models of neuroprotection in acute ischemic stroke to translate to clinical efficacy

The discrepancy in results regarding neuroprotective agents in animal experiments compared to clinical trials is a major problem. While many neuroprotective agents have been proven effective in a variety of animal ischemic stroke models, none have been shown to work in phase III clinical trials. This review retrospectively summarizes the neuroprotectants selected for human randomized controlled trials (RCT) and explores the reasons behind the clinical translational failure of these agents. Here, we suggest that there are many factors (model selection, anesthetic choice, physiological monitoring, model success criteria, embolus property, reperfusion damage, infarction area, therapeutic time window, drug penetration, blood concentration, gender difference, and outcome evaluation) responsible for this phenomenon. Ultra-early treatment using a "home run" drug and multi-target therapy may be the most promising for future consideration.

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from pigs' brain tissue which has proposed neuroprotective and neurotrophic properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia and China.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2009), EMBASE (1974 to February 2009), LILACS (1982 to February 2009), Science Citation Index (1940 to February 2009), SIGLE Archive (1980 to March 2005), and a number of relevant Russian Databases (1988 to February 2009). We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing cerebrolysin with placebo or no treatment in patients with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial involving 146 participants. There was no difference in death (6/78 in the cerebrolysin group versus 6/68 in the placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 2.58) or in the total number of adverse events (16.4% versus 10.3%; RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.82) between the treatment and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough evidence to evaluate the effect of cerebrolysin on survival and dependency in people with acute ischaemic stroke. High-quality and large-scale randomised controlled trials may help to gain a better understanding of the potential value of cerebrolysin in acute ischaemic stroke.

Neuroprotection for ischemic stroke: past, present and future

Neuroprotection for ischemic stroke refers to strategies, applied singly or in combination, that antagonize the injurious biochemical and molecular events that eventuate in irreversible ischemic injury. There has been a recent explosion of interest in this field, with over 1000 experimental papers and over 400 clinical articles appearing within the past 6 years. These studies, in turn, are the outgrowth of three decades of investigative work to define the multiple mechanisms and mediators of ischemic brain injury, which constitute potential targets of neuroprotection. Rigorously conducted experimental studies in animal models of brain ischemia provide incontrovertible proof-of-principle that high-grade protection of the ischemic brain is an achievable goal. Nonetheless, many agents have been brought to clinical trial without a sufficiently compelling evidence-based pre-clinical foundation. At this writing, around 160 clinical trials of neuroprotection for ischemic stroke have been initiated. Of the approximately 120 completed trials, two-thirds were smaller early-phase safety-feasibility studies. The remaining one-third were typically larger (>200 subjects) phase II or III trials, but, disappointingly, only fewer than one-half of these administered neuroprotective therapy within the 4-6h therapeutic window within which efficacious neuroprotection is considered to be achievable. This fact alone helps to account for the abundance of "failed" trials. This review presents a close survey of the most extensively evaluated neuroprotective agents and classes and considers both the strengths and weakness of the pre-clinical evidence as well as the results and shortcomings of the clinical trials themselves. Among the agent-classes considered are calcium channel blockers; glutamate antagonists; GABA agonists; antioxidants/radical scavengers; phospholipid precursor; nitric oxide signal-transduction down-regulator; leukocyte inhibitors; hemodilution; and a miscellany of other agents. Among promising ongoing efforts, therapeutic hypothermia, high-dose human albumin therapy, and hyperacute magnesium therapy are considered in detail. The potential of combination therapies is highlighted. Issues of clinical-trial funding, the need for improved translational strategies and clinical-trial design, and "thinking outside the box" are emphasized.

Gangliosides for acute spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in loss of feeling and movement. The consequences can be devastating for the patient and his or her carers. Global estimates of the number of new cases annually range from 15 to 40 per million. Leading causes of acute SCI are road traffic injury, violence, and injuries sustained in sports and other recreational activities. Care for people with SCI has improved, leading to an increase in survival rates. Attempts to improve patients' feeling and movement have involved the use of a wide range of treatments. Gangliosides are compounds that occur naturally in cell membranes. Laboratory studies have suggested they may have protective effects on nerves and even help them to re-grow. Clinical trials have taken place using gangliosides (usually GM1 ganglioside) for a number of neurological conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of gangliosides when used to treat acute SCI.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases to identify trials for inclusion: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the National Research Register. We also searched web-based trials registers, such as Current Controlled Trials. We approached the manufacturers of the most widely used ganglioside and researchers in this field to try to locate any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any ganglioside versus controls, in patients with SCI. Outcome measures specified were: mortality, recovery of motor function, improvement in sensory measures, measures of functional activity, infections and any other adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from published studies and authors were contacted for further information. All data found was dichotomous and odds ratios (with 95% CIs) were calculated. A fixed-effects model was assumed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria. There were no deaths in one (n=37). In the other (n=760), there were slightly more deaths in the treatment group than in the control group; odds ratio 1.07 (0.57, 2.00 95%CI) - a result that can be explained by the play of chance. Methodological weaknesses regarding the collection and presentation of data from the two studies made it impossible to reach any conclusions regarding the effect of gangliosides on the other specified outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence available does not support the use of ganglioside treatment to reduce the death rate in SCI patients. No evidence has yet emerged that ganglioside treatment improves recovery or quality of life in survivors.

Strategies of neuroprotection for intracranial aneurysms

Neuroprotection for patients with intracranial aneurysms encompasses the preservation of brain cells endangered by a limited blood and oxygen supply due to aneurysm rupture, clipping or coiling, as well as vasospasm. A large variety of prophylactic and therapeutic neuroprotective strategies have been proposed, but success in human disease is quite limited. Topics of this chapter are the pathophysiology and treatment options of aneurysms, as well as promising neuroprotective strategies in further developmental stages: both physiologically based (hyperoxygenation, hypothermia, avoidance of hyperthermia and hyperglycaemia, hypertension, haemodilution and hypervolaemia) and pharmacologically based (antifibrinolytic drugs, calcium antagonists, anaesthetics, magnesium, erythropoietin and others). New concepts are ischaemic preconditioning, growth factors, and gene therapy. Each strategy is rated on underlying evidence, and research agendas are mentioned.

Neuroprotective agents for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke

Neuroprotective treatments are therapies designed to interrupt the cellular, biochemical, and metabolic elaboration of injury during or following exposure to ischemia; they encompass a rapidly expanding array of pharmacologic interventions. Various classes of neuroprotective agents have reached phase III efficacy trials in focal ischemic stroke, but none has proven effective, despite successful preceding animal studies. This notwithstanding, recent favorable results of hypothermia in human cardiac arrest trials have validated the general concept of neuroprotection. In addition, the promise of neuroprotective therapy for focal acute ischemic stroke has been renewed by innovations in strategies of preclinical drug development and clinical trial design that rectify past defects, including trial testing of combination therapies rather than single agents and novel approaches to accelerating time to initiation of experimental treatment.