Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing elective hip or knee surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee replacement surgery is a well-established means of improving quality of life, but is associated with a significant risk of bleeding. One-third of people are estimated to be anaemic before hip or knee replacement surgery; coupled with the blood lost during surgery, up to 90% of individuals are anaemic postoperatively. As a result, people undergoing orthopaedic surgery receive 3.9% of all packed red blood cell transfusions in the UK. Bleeding and the need for allogeneic blood transfusions has been shown to increase the risk of surgical site infection and mortality, and is associated with an increased duration of hospital stay and costs associated with surgery. Reducing blood loss during surgery may reduce the risk of allogeneic blood transfusion, reduce costs and improve outcomes following surgery. Several pharmacological interventions are available and currently employed as part of routine clinical care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative efficacy of pharmacological interventions for preventing blood loss in elective primary or revision hip or knee replacement, and to identify optimal administration of interventions regarding timing, dose and route, using network meta-analysis (NMA) methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, from inception to 18 October 2022: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Transfusion Evidence Library (Evidentia), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of people undergoing elective hip or knee surgery only. We excluded non-elective or emergency procedures, and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered (Cochrane Injuries policy). There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity or age (adults only). We excluded studies that used standard of care as the comparator. Eligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid (TXA), aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA)), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants and non-fibrin sealants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed the review according to standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using CINeMA. We presented direct (pairwise) results using RevMan Web and performed the NMA using BUGSnet. We were interested in the following primary outcomes: need for allogenic blood transfusion (up to 30 days) and all-cause mortality (deaths occurring up to 30 days after the operation), and the following secondary outcomes: mean number of transfusion episodes per person (up to 30 days), re-operation due to bleeding (within seven days), length of hospital stay and adverse events related to the intervention received.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 102 studies. Twelve studies did not report the number of included participants; the other 90 studies included 8418 participants. Trials included more women (64%) than men (36%). In the NMA for allogeneic blood transfusion, we included 47 studies (4398 participants). Most studies examined TXA (58 arms, 56%). We found that TXA, given intra-articularly and orally at a total dose of greater than 3 g pre-incision, intraoperatively and postoperatively, ranked the highest, with an anticipated absolute effect of 147 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 people (150 fewer to 104 fewer) (53% chance of ranking 1st) within the NMA (risk ratio (RR) 0.02, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0 to 0.31; moderate-certainty evidence). This was followed by TXA given orally at a total dose of 3 g pre-incision and postoperatively (RR 0.06, 95% CrI 0.00 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence) and TXA given intravenously and orally at a total dose of greater than 3 g intraoperatively and postoperatively (RR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). Aprotinin (RR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence), topical fibrin (RR 0.86, CrI 0.25 to 2.93; very low-certainty evidence) and EACA (RR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.29 to 1.27; very low-certainty evidence) were not shown to be as effective compared with TXA at reducing the risk of blood transfusion. We were unable to perform an NMA for our primary outcome all-cause mortality within 30 days of surgery due to the large number of studies with zero events, or because the outcome was not reported. In the NMA for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we included 19 studies (2395 participants). Most studies examined TXA (27 arms, 64%). No studies assessed desmopressin, EACA or topical fibrin. We found that TXA given intravenously and orally at a total dose of greater than 3 g intraoperatively and postoperatively ranked the highest, with an anticipated absolute effect of 67 fewer DVTs per 1000 people (67 fewer to 34 more) (26% chance of ranking first) within the NMA (RR 0.16, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.43; low-certainty evidence). This was followed by TXA given intravenously and intra-articularly at a total dose of 2 g pre-incision and intraoperatively (RR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.00 to 9.12; low-certainty evidence) and TXA given intravenously and intra-articularly, total dose greater than 3 g pre-incision, intraoperatively and postoperatively (RR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.01 to 3.11; low-certainty evidence). Aprotinin was not shown to be as effective compared with TXA (RR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.28 to 1.62; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform an NMA for our secondary outcomes pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction and CVA (stroke) within 30 days, mean number of transfusion episodes per person (up to 30 days), re-operation due to bleeding (within seven days), or length of hospital stay, due to the large number of studies with zero events, or because the outcome was not reported by enough studies to build a network. There are 30 ongoing trials planning to recruit 3776 participants, the majority examining TXA (26 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that of all the interventions studied, TXA is probably the most effective intervention for preventing bleeding in people undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery. Aprotinin and EACA may not be as effective as TXA at preventing the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. We were not able to draw strong conclusions on the optimal dose, route and timing of administration of TXA. We found that TXA given at higher doses tended to rank higher in the treatment hierarchy, and we also found that it may be more beneficial to use a mixed route of administration (oral and intra-articular, oral and intravenous, or intravenous and intra-articular). Oral administration may be as effective as intravenous administration of TXA. We found little to no evidence of harm associated with higher doses of tranexamic acid in the risk of DVT. However, we are not able to definitively draw these conclusions based on the trials included within this review.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Haemostatic therapies for stroke due to acute, spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Outcome after acute spontaneous (non-traumatic) intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is influenced by haematoma volume. ICH expansion occurs in about 20% of people with acute ICH. Early haemostatic therapy might improve outcome by limiting ICH expansion. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and last updated in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To examine 1. the effects of individual classes of haemostatic therapies, compared with placebo or open control, in adults with acute spontaneous ICH, and 2. the effects of each class of haemostatic therapy according to the use and type of antithrombotic drug before ICH onset.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL (2022, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid on 12 September 2022. To identify further published, ongoing, and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we scanned bibliographies of relevant articles and searched international registers of RCTs in September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of any haemostatic intervention (i.e. procoagulant treatments such as clotting factor concentrates, antifibrinolytic drugs, platelet transfusion, or agents to reverse the action of antithrombotic drugs) for acute spontaneous ICH, compared with placebo, open control, or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was death/dependence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 4 to 6) by day 90. Secondary outcomes were ICH expansion on brain imaging after 24 hours, all serious adverse events, thromboembolic adverse events, death from any cause, quality of life, mood, cognitive function, Barthel Index score, and death or dependence measured on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale by day 90.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs involving 4652 participants: nine RCTs of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) versus placebo/open control (1549 participants), eight RCTs of antifibrinolytic drugs versus placebo/open control (2866 participants), one RCT of platelet transfusion versus open control (190 participants), and two RCTs of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (47 participants). Four (20%) RCTs were at low risk of bias in all criteria. For rFVIIa versus placebo/open control for spontaneous ICH with or without surgery there was little to no difference in death/dependence by day 90 (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found little to no difference in ICH expansion between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; 4 RCTs, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.22; 2 RCTs, 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence; death from any cause: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.08; 8 RCTs, 1544 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For antifibrinolytic drugs versus placebo/open control for spontaneous ICH, there was no difference in death/dependence by day 90 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 2683 participants; high-certainty evidence). We found a slight reduction in ICH expansion with antifibrinolytic drugs for spontaneous ICH compared to placebo/open control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; 8 RCTs, 2866 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 2599 participants; high-certainty evidence; death from any cause: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; 8 RCTs, 2866 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in quality of life, mood, or cognitive function (quality of life: mean difference (MD) 0, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 2349 participants; mood: MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.98 to 2.57; 2 RCTs, 2349 participants; cognitive function: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.66; 1 RCTs, 2325 participants; all high-certainty evidence). Platelet transfusion likely increases death/dependence by day 90 compared to open control for antiplatelet-associated ICH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no difference in ICH expansion between groups (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 1 RCT, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.16; 1 RCT, 190 participants; death from any cause: RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.28; 1 RCT, 190 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence). For PCC versus FFP for anticoagulant-associated ICH, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect on death/dependence by day 90, ICH expansion, all serious adverse events, and death from any cause between groups (death/dependence by day 90: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.90; 1 RCT, 37 participants; ICH expansion: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 36 participants; all serious adverse events: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.74; 1 RCT, 5 participants; death from any cause: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 42 participants; all very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this updated Cochrane Review including 20 RCTs involving 4652 participants, rFVIIa likely results in little to no difference in reducing death or dependence after spontaneous ICH with or without surgery; antifibrinolytic drugs result in little to no difference in reducing death or dependence after spontaneous ICH, but result in a slight reduction in ICH expansion within 24 hours; platelet transfusion likely increases death or dependence after antiplatelet-associated ICH; and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PCC compared to FFP on death or dependence after anticoagulant-associated ICH. Thirteen RCTs are ongoing and are likely to increase the certainty of the estimates of treatment effect.

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.

First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic and long bone fractures

BACKGROUND

Pelvic, hip, and long bone fractures can result in significant bleeding at the time of injury, with further blood loss if they are treated with surgical fixation. People undergoing surgery are therefore at risk of requiring a blood transfusion and may be at risk of peri-operative anaemia. Pharmacological interventions for blood conservation may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion and associated complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions for reducing blood loss in definitive surgical fixation of the hip, pelvic, and long bones.

SEARCH METHODS

We used a predefined search strategy to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from inception to 7 April 2022, without restrictions on language, year, or publication status. We handsearched reference lists of included trials to identify further relevant trials. We contacted authors of ongoing trials to acquire any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent trauma (non-elective) surgery for definitive fixation of hip, pelvic, and long bone (pelvis, tibia, femur, humerus, radius, ulna and clavicle) fractures only. There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity, or age. We excluded planned (elective) procedures (e.g. scheduled total hip arthroplasty), and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered. Eligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants, and non-fibrin sealants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We did not perform a network meta-analysis due to lack of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (929 participants), published between 2005 and 2021. Three trials did not report any of our predefined outcomes and so were not included in quantitative analyses (all were tranexamic acid versus placebo). We identified three comparisons of interest: intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo; topical tranexamic acid versus placebo; and recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo. We rated the certainty of evidence as very low to low across all outcomes. Comparison 1. Intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo Intravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69; 6 RCTs, 457 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.77; 2 RCTs, 147 participants; low-certainty evidence).  It may result in little to no difference in risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 199 participants; low-certainty evidence), and cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 3 RCTs, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain if there is a difference between groups for risk of deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.22 to 21.35; 4 RCTs, 329 participants, very low-certainty evidence), pulmonary embolism (Peto OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.66; 4 RCTs, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and suspected serious drug reactions (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, or acute transfusion reaction. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures), and upgraded the evidence for transfusion requirement for a large effect.  Comparison 2. Topical tranexamic acid versus placebo We are uncertain if there is a difference between topical tranexamic acid and placebo for risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 101 participants), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 36 participants), risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.62; 1 RCT, 36 participants), cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 1 RCT, 65 participants); and deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.77; 2 RCTs, 101 participants).  All outcomes reported were very low-certainty evidence. No data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, incidence of pulmonary embolism, acute transfusion reaction, or suspected serious drug reactions. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), inconsistency (moderate heterogeneity), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures, and high risk of attrition and reporting biases in one trial). Comparison 3. Recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo   Only one RCT of 48 participants reported data for recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo, so we have not presented the results here.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot draw conclusions from the current evidence due to lack of data. Most published studies included in our analyses assessed the use of tranexamic acid (compared to placebo, or using different routes of administration).  We identified 27 prospectively registered ongoing RCTs (total target recruitment of 4177 participants by end of 2023). The ongoing trials create six new comparisons: tranexamic acid (tablet + injection) versus placebo; intravenous tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; topical tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; different intravenous tranexamic acid dosing regimes; topical tranexamic acid versus topical fibrin glue; and fibrinogen (injection) versus placebo.

Antithrombotic treatment after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane Review last published in 2017. Survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatments may lower the risk of ischaemic MACE after ICH, but they may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs on MACE and its components for people with ICH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (5 October 2021). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to October 2021) and Embase Ovid (from 1980 to October 2021). The online registries of clinical trials searched were the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 October 2021). We screened the reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for additional, potentially relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs in which participants with ICH of any age were allocated to a class of antithrombotic treatment as intervention or comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In accordance with standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, two review authors assessed each selected RCT for its risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was a composite of MACE, and secondary outcomes included death, individual components of the MACE composite, ICH growth, functional status and cognitive status. We estimated effects using the frequency of outcomes that occurred during the entire duration of follow-up and calculated a risk ratio (RR) for each RCT. We grouped RCTs separately for analysis according to 1) the class(es) of antithrombotic treatment used for the intervention and comparator, and 2) the duration of antithrombotic treatment use (short term versus long term). We pooled the intention-to-treat populations of RCTs using a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis, but used a random-effects model if RCTs differed substantially in their design or there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 75%) in their results. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new completed RCTs for this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of nine RCTs based in secondary care, comprising 1491 participants (average age ranged from 61 to 79 years and the proportion of men ranged from 44% to 67%). The proportion of included RCTs at low risk of bias, by category was: random sequence generation (67%), allocation concealment (67%), performance (22%), detection (78%), attrition (89%), and reporting (78%). For starting versus avoiding short-term prophylactic dose anticoagulation after ICH, no RCT reported MACE. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of starting short-term prophylactic dose anticoagulation on death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.70, P = 1.00; 3 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37, P = 0.49; 4 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), ICH (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38, P = 0.11; 2 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), and independent functional status (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.25, P = 0.15; 1 RCT; very low-certainty evidence) over 90 days. For starting versus avoiding long-term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after ICH, starting long-term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation probably reduces MACE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94, P = 0.02; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably reduces all major occlusive vascular events (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.53, P = 0.0002; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in little to no difference in death (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78, P = 0.86; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), probably increases intracranial haemorrhage (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.88 to 6.73, P = 0.09; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in independent functional status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24, P = 0.87; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence) over one to three years. For starting versus avoiding long-term antiplatelet therapy after ICH, the evidence is uncertain about the effects of starting long-term antiplatelet therapy on MACE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22, P = 0.46; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), death (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.53, P = 0.66; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), all major occlusive vascular events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.55, P = 0.90; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), ICH (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03, P = 0.06; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence) and independent functional status (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18, P = 0.67; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence) over a median follow-up of two years. For adults within 180 days of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a clinical history of prior ICH, there was no evidence of an effect of long-term cilostazol compared to aspirin on MACE (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.40, P = 0.34; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence), death (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.91, P = 0.37; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence), or ICH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.69, P = 0.70; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence) over a median follow-up of 1.8 years; all major occlusive vascular events and functional status were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify beneficial or hazardous effects of short-term prophylactic dose parenteral anticoagulation and long-term oral antiplatelet therapy after ICH on important outcomes. Although there was a significant reduction in MACE and all major occlusive vascular events after long-term treatment with therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after ICH, the pooled estimates were imprecise, the certainty of evidence was only moderate, and effects on other important outcomes were uncertain. Large RCTs with a low risk of bias are required to resolve the ongoing dilemmas about antithrombotic treatment after ICH.

Use of antihypertensive medication after ischemic stroke in young adults and its association with long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

Knowledge on the use of secondary preventive medication in young adults is limited.

METHODS

We included 936 first-ever ischemic stroke 30-day survivors aged 15-49, enrolled in the Helsinki Young Stroke Registry, 1994-2007. Follow-up data until 2012 came from Finnish Care Register, Statistics Finland, and Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Usage thresholds were defined as non-users, low (prescription coverage <30%), intermediate (30-80%) and high users (>80%). Adjusted Cox regression allowed assessing the association of usage with all-cause mortality and recurrent vascular events.

RESULTS

Of our patients, 40.5% were non-users, 7.8% had low usage, 11.8% intermediate usage and 40.0% high usage. Median follow-up was 8.3 years. Compared to non-users, risk of mortality and recurrent stroke or TIA was lower for patients with low-intermediate (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.65; HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.53) and high usage (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.42; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.46), after adjustment for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of antihypertensives was suboptimal in one-third of patients in whom antihypertensives were initially prescribed. Users were at lower risk of mortality and recurrent stroke or TIA compared to non-users. Key Messages The use of antihypertensive medication is suboptimal in one-third of patients in whom antihypertensive medication was initially prescribed after ischemic stroke at young age. The risk of mortality and recurrent stroke or TIA is lower for users of antihypertensive medication after ischemic stroke at young age compared to non-users, after adjustment for relevant confounders including pre-existing hypertension and prior use of antihypertensive medication. Specific guidelines on antihypertensive medication use after ischemic stroke at young age are lacking. However, our results may motivate doctors and patients in gaining better usage of antihypertensive medication, since better usage was associated with more favorable outcome in this study.

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.

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.

Mailuoning for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Mailuoning is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in China. Animal experimental studies and clinical pharmacological research indicate that mailuoning might improve blood circulation, prevent ischaemic injury, and protect heart and brain tissue. This review was last published in 2009. As new data have become available, it is necessary to reassess the evidence from randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects and safety of mailuoning agents (injection or oral liquid) in the treatment of people with acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2014), Embase (1980 to May 2014), AMED (1985 to May 2014), the Chinese Stroke Trials Register (June 2014), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc; 1979 to June 2014), China Science and Technology Journal database (CSTJ; 1979 to June 2014), Wanfang Data Chinese databases (1979 to June 2014), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to June 2014). We searched clinical trials and research registers, handsearched 10 Chinese journals including relevant conference proceedings, scanned reference lists, and contacted the pharmaceutical company that manufactures mailuoning. We also attempted to contact trial authors to obtain further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing mailuoning with placebo or mailuoning plus other treatment compared with that other treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials, involving 1746 participants, in this update; six trials were new. The included trials did not report the numbers of dead and dependent participants at the end of at least three months' follow-up. Of the 12 trials that reported adverse events, five events occurred in two trials. There was no significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. We assessed 20 trials to be of a poor quality: When analysing these trials together, mailuoning was associated with a significant increase in the number of participants with an improved neurological deficit (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.42) and showed a significant improvement of neurological deficit with the European Stroke Scale (ESS) (mean difference (MD) (fixed) 8.29, 95% CI 3.44 to 13.15). One placebo-controlled trial, assessed to be of a better methodological quality, failed to show a significant improvement of neurological deficit at the end of three months' follow-up (MD (fixed) 2.49, 95% CI -1.45 to 6.43) or in quality of life. One trial, which reported cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a continuous scale, showed a significant improvement of cognitive function (MD (fixed) 2.68, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.54). Two trials assessed activities of daily life: One trial showed a significant improvement, but the other did not.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review did not provide sufficient evidence to support the routine use of mailuoning for the treatment of people with acute ischaemic stroke. High-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of mailuoning.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery

BACKGROUND

Stroke is the major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression. Recently, small trials have demonstrated that SSRIs might improve recovery after stroke, even in people who are not depressed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the least biased way to bring together data from several trials. Given the promising effect of SSRIs on stroke recovery seen in small trials, a systematic review and meta-analysis is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether SSRIs improve recovery after stroke, and whether treatment with SSRIs was associated with adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2011), Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group Trials Register (November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1948 to August 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to August 2011), CINAHL (from 1982 to August 2011), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (from 1985 to August 2011), PsycINFO (from 1967 to August 2011) and PsycBITE (Pyschological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy) (March 2012). To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched trials registers, pharmaceutical websites, reference lists, contacted experts and performed citation tracking of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that recruited stroke survivors (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. In order to be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (dependence and disability) or secondary (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early) outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. For trials in English, two review authors independently extracted data. For Chinese papers, one review author extracted data. We used standardised mean differences (SMD) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 completed trials of SSRI versus control, of which 52 trials (4059 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. There were statistically significant benefits of SSRI on both of the primary outcomes: RR for reducing dependency at the end of treatment was 0.81 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97) based on one trial, and for disability score, the SMD was 0.91 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) (22 trials involving 1343 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%; P < 0.0001). For neurological deficit, depression and anxiety, there were statistically significant benefits of SSRIs. For neurological deficit score, the SMD was -1.00 (95% CI -1.26 to -0.75) (29 trials involving 2011 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). For dichotomous depression scores, the RR was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.77) (eight trials involving 771 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 77%; P < 0.0001). For continuous depression scores, the SMD was -1.91 (95% CI -2.34 to -1.48) (39 trials involving 2728 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 95%; P < 0.00001). For anxiety, the SMD was -0.77 (95% CI -1.52 to -0.02) (eight trials involving 413 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 92%; P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant benefit of SSRI on cognition, death, motor deficits and leaving the trial early. For cognition, the SMD was 0.32 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.86), (seven trials involving 425 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). The RR for death was 0.76 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.70) (46 trials involving 3344 participants) with no heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 0%; P = 0.85). For motor deficits, the SMD was -0.33 (95% CI -1.22 to 0.56) (two trials involving 145 participants). The RR for leaving the trial early was 1.02 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21) in favour of control, with no heterogeneity between trials. There was a non-significant excess of seizures (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 11.63) (seven trials involving 444 participants), a non-significant excess of gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.94 to 3.85) (14 trials involving 902 participants) and a non-significant excess of bleeding (RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 13.05) (two trials involving 249 participants) in those allocated SSRIs. Data were not available on quality of life, fatigue or healthcare costs.There was no clear evidence from subgroup analyses that one SSRI was consistently superior to another, or that time since stroke or depression at baseline had a major influence on effect sizes. Sensitivity analyses suggested that effect sizes were smaller when we excluded trials at high or unclear risk of bias.Only eight trials provided data on outcomes after treatment had been completed; the effect sizes were generally in favour of SSRIs but CIs were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SSRIs appeared to improve dependence, disability, neurological impairment, anxiety and depression after stroke, but there was heterogeneity between trials and methodological limitations in a substantial proportion of the trials. Large, well-designed trials are now needed to determine whether SSRIs should be given routinely to patients with stroke.