Impact of Thrombolysis on Stroke Outcome at 12 Months in a Population

Background and Purpose—

Thrombolysis improves outcome of patients with acute ischemic stroke, but it is unknown whether thrombolysis has a measurable effect on long-term outcome in a defined population.

Methods—

We prospectively assessed demographic data, management, and outcome of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted within 48 hours to 18 primary care hospitals of the canton of Bern (969 299 inhabitants) during 12 months. Blinded follow-up was obtained at 3 and 12 months. Predictors of mortality and favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≤2) at 3 and 12 months using logistic regression were analyzed.

Results—

From December 2007 to December 2008, 807 patients (mean age, 72 years) were included. Median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission was 5; 107 patients (13%) received intravenous, intra-arterial, or mechanical thrombolysis. Estimated cumulative mortality at 3 months was 20.6% and at 12 months 27.4%. Age 75 years or older, higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, and higher Charlson comorbidity index were independent predictors of mortality at 3 and 12 months. Estimated favorable outcome at 3 months was 48.2% and at 12 months was 44.6%. Thrombolysis was the only modifiable independent predictor of favorable outcome at 3 (relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18–1.89) and 12 months (relative risk, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.24–2.04), whereas age younger than 75 years, male gender, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score <4, and lower Charlson comorbidity index were nonmodifiable predictors.

Conclusions—

Thirteen percent of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted within 48 hours to Bernese hospitals underwent thrombolysis, which exerted a measurable effect on 3-month outcome in this population. This effect was sustained at 12 months. Age, stroke severity, Charlson comorbidity index, and male gender were independent nonmodifiable predictors of outcome.

Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data.

STUDY SELECTION

All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients' reported pain as an outcome.

METHODS

We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials.

RESULTS

On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes -0.21, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.