Piracetam for acute ischaemic stroke

Piracetam for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Piracetam has neuroprotective and antithrombotic effects that may help to reduce death and disability in people with acute stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999, and previously updated in 2006 and 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of piracetam in acute, presumed ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 15 May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), and ISI Science Citation Index (1981 to May 2011). We also contacted the manufacturer of piracetam to identify further published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing piracetam with control, with at least mortality reported and entry to the trial within three days of stroke onset.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and this was checked by the other two review authors. We contacted study authors for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials involving 1002 patients, with one trial contributing 93% of the data. Participants' ages ranged from 40 to 85 years, and both sexes were equally represented. Piracetam was associated with a statistically non-significant increase in death at one month (approximately 31% increase, 95% confidence interval 81% increase to 5% reduction). This trend was no longer apparent in the large trial after correction for imbalance in stroke severity. Limited data showed no difference between the treatment and control groups for functional outcome, dependence or proportion of patients dead or dependent. Adverse effects were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some suggestion (but no statistically significant result) of an unfavourable effect of piracetam on early death, but this may have been caused by baseline differences in stroke severity in the trials. There is not enough evidence to assess the effect of piracetam on dependence.

Piracetam: a review of pharmacological properties and clinical uses

Piracetam, a derivative of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), has a variety of physiological effects that may result, at least in part, from the restoration of cell membrane fluidity. At a neuronal level, piracetam modulates neurotransmission in a range of transmitter systems (including cholinergic and glutamatergic), has neuroprotective and anticonvulsant properties, and improves neuroplasticity. At a vascular level, it appears to reduce erythrocyte adhesion to vascular endothelium, hinder vasospasm, and facilitate microcirculation. This diverse range of physiological effects is consistent with its use in a range of clinical indications. Its efficacy is documented in cognitive disorders and dementia, vertigo, cortical myoclonus, dyslexia, and sickle cell anemia. While high doses are sometimes necessary, piracetam is well tolerated.

Pharmacological treatment for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia describes language impairment associated with a brain lesion.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of drugs on language abilities when given to people with aphasia following stroke.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Register (last searched: May 2001), and reference lists of relevant articles to December 1998. We also contacted academic institutions and other researchers to identify further published and unpublished trials. MEDLINE was searched from 1966-1998, and CINAHL from 1982-1998. We searched the International Journal of Disorders of Communication by hand (known by other names in the past), from 1969 to 1998.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing: ~bullet~Any drug given to improve language, versus no treatment, or versus placebo ~bullet~Any drug given to improve language versus speech and language therapy ~bullet~One drug given to improve language versus another drug given with the same aim

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The principal reviewer collected the data, and assessed the quality of the trials with independent data checking and methodological advice. If we could not perform a statistical combination of different studies, we sought missing data. Failing that we provided a description. We sought missing data from authors, or where appropriate, a drug company.

MAIN RESULTS

We considered fifty two studies in detail, from which we identified ten trials suitable for the review. In most cases the methodological quality was unassessable, and only one trial reported sufficient detail for us to complete a description and analysis. This study did lose a large number of patients during its course. Drugs used in the trials identified were piracetam, bifemalane, piribedil, bromocriptine, idebenone, and Dextran 40. We found weak evidence that patients were more likely to have improved on any language measure at the end of the trial if they had received treatment with piracetam (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 0.7). The evidence is considered weak because of the large numbers of drop outs from the trials identified, who were lost to follow up. Patients who were treated with piracetam were no more likely (considering statistical significance) than those who took a placebo to experience unwanted effects, including death (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval for difference 0.9 to 1.7). However, the differences in death rates between the two groups, even though not not statistically significant, do give rise to some concerns that there may be an increased risk of death from taking piracetam. We could not determine if drug treatment is more effective than speech and language therapy. We could not determine whether one drug is more effective than another.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusion of this review is that drug treatment with piracetam may be effective in the treatment of aphasia after stroke. Further research is needed to explore the effects of drugs for aphasia, in particular piracetam. If a trial is done, this must be large enough to have adequate statistical power. The safety of the drug should be of primary interest. Researchers should examine the long term effects of this treatment, and whether it is more effective than speech and language therapy.