Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of 9 nonoperative regimens for the treatment of spinal cord injury: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of 9 nonoperative regimens (placebo, pregabalin, GM-1 ganglioside, venlafaxine extended-release [venlafaxine XR], fampridine, conventional over-ground training [OT], body-weight-supported treadmill training [BWSTT], robotic-assisted gait training [RAGT] + OT and body-weight-supported over-ground training [BWSOT]) in treating spinal cord injury (SCI).

Methods

Clinical controlled trials of 9 nonoperative regimens for SCI were retrieved in the electronic database. Traditional pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of 9 nonoperative regimens for the treatment of SCI. Weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratios (OR), and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were calculated using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo engine Open BUGS (V.3.4.0) and R (V.3.2.1) package gemtc (V.0.6).

Results

A total of 9 clinical controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were selected in this meta-analysis. On the aspect of efficacy, the results of pairwise meta-analysis indicated that the RAGT + OT and BWSOT might have the best efficacy in SCI patients in terms of a lower extremity motor score (LEMS) compared with conventional OT; the efficacy of RAGT + OT on SCI patients was relatively better than that of conventional OT in terms of walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI). With the aspect of safety, the constipation rate of placebo on SCI patients was relatively higher than that of venlafaxine XR; however, with respect to headache and urinary tract infection, there was no significant difference in the safety of placebo, pregabalin, GM-1 ganglioside, venlafaxine XR, and fampridine on SCI patients. The results of SUCRA values suggested that BWSOT had the highest SUCRA value (75.25%) of LEMS; RAGT + OT had the highest SUCRA value (88.50%) of WISCI; venlafaxine XR had the highest SUCRA value (94.00%) of constipation; venlafaxine XR had the highest SUCRA value (80.00%) of headache; GM-1 ganglioside had the highest SUCRA value (87.75%) of urinary tract infection.

Conclusion

Our results provide evidence that the RAGT + OT and BWSOT might have the best efficacy in the treatment of SCI, and the venlafaxine XR and GM-1 ganglioside showed adequate safety for SCI.

SUBMITTER: Ma DN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5708945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:The role for steroids in acute spinal cord injury (ASCI) remains unclear; while some studies have demonstrated the risks of steroids outweigh the benefits,a meta-analyses conducted on heterogeneous patient populations have shown significant motor improvement at short-term but not at long-term follow-up. Given the heterogeneity of the patient population in previous meta-analyses and the publication of a recent trial not included in these meta-analyses, we sought to re-assess and update the safety and short-term and long-term efficacy of steroid treatment following ASCI in a more homogeneous patient population. Materials and methods:A literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library through June 2019 for studies evaluating the utility of steroids within the first 8 h following ASCI. Neurological and safety outcomes were extracted for patients treated and not treated with steroids. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using the random-effects model. Results:Twelve studies, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven observational studies (OBSs), were meta-analyzed. Overall, methylprednisolone was not associated with significant short-term or long-term improvements in motor or neurological scores based on RCTs or OBSs. An increased risk of hyperglycemia was shown in both RCTs (RR: 13.7; 95% CI: 1.93, 97.4; 1 study) and OBSs (RR: 2.9; 95% CI: 1.55, 5.41; 1 study). Risk for pneumonia was increased with steroids; while this increase was not statistically significant in the RCTs (pooled RR: 1.16; 95% C.I: 0.59, 2.29; 3 studies), it reached statistical significance in the OBSs (pooled RR: 2.00; 95% C.I: 1.32, 3.02; 6 studies). There was no statistically significant increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, decubitus ulcers, surgical site infections, sepsis, atelectasis, venous thromboembolism, urinary tract infections, or mortality among steroid-treated ASCI patients compared to untreated controls in either RCTs or OBSs. Conclusions:Methylprednisolone therapy within the first 8 h following ASCI failed to show a statistically significant short-term or long-term improvement in patients' overall motor or neurological scores compared to controls who were not administered steroids. For the same comparison, there was an increased risk of pneumonia and hyperglycemia compared to controls. Routine use of methylprednisone following ASCI should be carefully considered in the context of these results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness of transplanted cells from different sources for spinal cord injury (SCI).DesignA systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.Study selectionWe included randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and case series related to cell transplantation for SCI patients, that included at least 1 of the following outcome measures: American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS grade), ASIA motor score, ASIA sensory score, the Functional Independence Measure score (FIM), International Association of Neurorestoratology Spinal Cord Injury Functional Rating Scale (IANR-SCIFRS), or adverse events. Follow-up data were analyzed at 6 and 12 months.ResultsForty-four eligible trials, involving 1,266 patients, investigated 6 treatments: olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs), neural stem cells/ neural progenitor cells (NSCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), Schwann cells, macrophages, and combinations of cells (MSCs plus Schwann cells). Macrophages improved the AIS grade at 12 months (mean 0.42, 95% credible interval: 0-0.91, low certainty) and FIM score at 12 months (42.83, 36.33-49.18, very low certainty). MSCs improved the AIS grade at 6 months (0.42, 0.15-0.73, moderate certainty), the motor score at 6 months (4.43, 0.91-7.78, moderate certainty), light touch at 6 (10.01, 5.81-13.88, moderate certainty) and 12 months (11.48, 6.31-16.64, moderate certainty), pinprick score at 6 (14.54, 9.76-19.46, moderate certainty) and 12 months (12.48, 7.09-18.12, moderate certainty), and the IANR-SCIFRS at 6 (3.96, 0.62-6.97, moderate certainty) and 12 months (5.54, 2.45-8.42, moderate certainty). OECs improved the FIM score at 6 months (9.35, 1.71-17.00, moderate certainty). No intervention improved the motor score significantly at 12 months. The certainty of other interventions was low or very low. Overall, the number of adverse events associated with transplanted cells was low.ConclusionsPatients with SCI who receive transplantation of macrophages, MSCs, NSCs, or OECs may have improved disease prognosis. MSCs are the primary recommendations. Further exploration of the mechanism of cell transplantation in the treatment of SCI, transplantation time window, transplantation methods, and monitoring of the number of transplanted cells and cell survival is needed.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD 42021282043.

Project description:BackgroundRecent pieces of evidence about the efficacy of gait rehabilitation for incomplete spinal cord injury remain unclear. We aimed to estimate the treatment effect and find the best gait rehabilitation to regain velocity, distance, and Walking Index Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI) among incomplete spinal cord injury patients.MethodPubMed and Scopus databases were searched from inception to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in comparison with any of the following: conventional physical therapy, treadmill, functional electrical stimulation and robotic-assisted gait training, and reported at least one outcome. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effect model according to the heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was indirectly compared with all interventions and reported as pooled unstandardized mean difference (USMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to identify the best intervention.ResultsWe included 17 RCTs (709 participants) with the mean age of 43.9 years. Acute-phase robotic-assisted gait training significantly improved the velocity (USMD 0.1 m/s, 95% CI 0.05, 0.14), distance (USMD 64.75 m, 95% CI 27.24, 102.27), and WISCI (USMD 3.28, 95% CI 0.12, 6.45) compared to conventional physical therapy. In NMA, functional electrical stimulation had the highest probability of being the best intervention for velocity (66.6%, SUCRA 82.1) and distance (39.7%, SUCRA 67.4), followed by treadmill, functional electrical stimulation plus treadmill, robotic-assisted gait training, and conventional physical therapy, respectively.ConclusionFunctional electrical stimulation seems to be the best treatment to improve walking velocity and distance for incomplete spinal cord injury patients. However, a large-scale RCT is required to study the adverse events of these interventions.Trial registrationPROSPERO number CRD42019145797.

Project description:Background Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is an attractive candidate in regenerative research and clinical trials have assessed their therapeutic potential in different neurological conditions with disparate etiologies. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess safety and clinical effect of MSC treatment in traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI), multiple sclerosis (MS) and ischemic stroke (IS). Methods A systematic search was performed 2021-12-10 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane where clinical studies assessing MSC treatment in TSCI, MS or IS were included. Studies without control group were excluded for efficacy analysis, but included in the safety analysis. For efficacy, AIS score, EDSS score and mRS were used as clinical endpoints and assessed in a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Findings Of 5,548 identified records, 54 studies were included. Twenty-six studies assessed MSC treatment in TSCI, 14 in MS and nine in IS, of which seven, seven and five studies were controlled, respectively. There were seven serious adverse events (SAEs), of which four were related to the surgical procedure and included one death due to complications following the implantation of MSCs. Three SAEs were considered directly related to the MSC treatment and all these had a transient course. In TSCI, a meta-analysis showed no difference in conversion from AIS A to C and a trend toward more patients treated with MSCs improving from AIS A to B as compared to controls (p = 0.05). A subgroup analysis performed per protocol, showed more MSC treated patients improving from AIS A to C in studies including patients within 8 weeks after injury (p = 0.04). In MS and IS, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between MSC treated patients and controls as measured by EDSS and mRS, respectively. Interpretation MSC-treatment is safe in patients with TSCI, MS and IS, although surgical implantation of MSC led to one fatal outcome in TSCI. There was no clear clinical benefit of MSC treatment, but this is not necessarily a proof of inefficacy due to the low number of controlled studies. Future studies assessing efficacy of MSC treatment should aim to do this in randomized, controlled studies.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant blood loss is still one of the most frequent complications in spinal surgery, which often necessitates blood transfusion. Massive perioperative blood loss and blood transfusion can create additional risks. Aprotinin, tranexamic acid (TXA), and epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) are antifibrinolytics currently offered as prophylactic agents to reduce surgery-associated blood loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprotinin, EACA, and low/high doses of TXA in spinal surgery, and assess the use of which agent is the most optimal intervention using the network meta-analysis (NMA) method.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Web of Science, from the inception to March 1, 2018. Trials that were randomized and compared results between TXA, EACA, and placebo were identified. The NMA was conducted with software R 3.3.2 and STATA 14.0.ResultsThirty randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were analyzed. Aprotinin (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.65, 95% credibility intervals [CrI;-1.25, -0.06]), low-dose TXA (SMD = -0.58, 95% CrI [-0.92, -0.25]), and high-dose TXA (SMD = -0.70, 95% CrI [-1.04, -0.36]) were more effective than the respective placebos in reducing intraoperative blood loss. Low-dose TXA (SMD = -1.90, 95% CrI [-3.32, -0.48]) and high-dose TXA (SMD = -2.31, 95% CrI [-3.75, -0.87]) had less postoperative blood loss. Low-dose TXA (SMD = -1.07, 95% CrI [-1.82, -0.31]) and high-dose TXA (SMD = -1.07, 95% CrI [-1.82, -0.31]) significantly reduced total blood loss. However, only high-dose TXA (SMD = -2.07, 95% CrI [-3.26, -0.87]) was more effective in reducing the amount of transfusion, and was significantly superior to low-dose TXA in this regard (SMD = -1.67, 95% CrI [-3.20, -0.13]). Furthermore, aprotinin (odds ratio [OR] = 0.16, 95% CrI [0.05, 0.54]), EACA (OR = 0.46, 95% CrI [0.22, 0.97]) and high dose of TXA (OR = 0.34, 95% CrI [0.19, 0.58]) had a significant reduction in transfusion rates. Antifibrinolytics did not show a significantly increased risk of postoperative thrombosis. Results of ranking probabilities indicated that high-dose TXA had the greatest efficacy and a relatively high safety level.ConclusionsThe antifibrinolytic agents are able to reduce perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirement during spine surgery. And the high-dose TXA administration might be used as the optimal treatment to reduce blood loss and transfusion.