Dataset Information

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ziganshina LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6478305 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCerebrolysin 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.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and risks of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.Search methodsIn 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 criteriaRandomised 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 analysisTwo review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data.Main resultsWe 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' conclusionsThe 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.

Project description:BackgroundMost ischaemic strokes are caused by a blood clot blocking an artery in the brain. Clot prevention with anticoagulants might improve outcomes if bleeding risks are low. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, with recent updates in 2004 and 2008.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of early anticoagulation (within the first 14 days of onset) in people with acute presumed or confirmed ischaemic stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 6), MEDLINE (2008 to June 2014) and EMBASE (2008 to June 2014). In addition, we searched ongoing trials registries and reference lists of relevant papers. For previous versions of this review, we searched the register of the Antithrombotic Trialists' (ATT) Collaboration, consulted MedStrategy (1995), and contacted relevant drug companies.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing early anticoagulant therapy (started within two weeks of stroke onset) with control in people with acute presumed or confirmed ischaemic stroke.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data.Main resultsWe included 24 trials involving 23,748 participants. The quality of the trials varied considerably. The anticoagulants tested were standard unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, heparinoids, oral anticoagulants, and thrombin inhibitors. Over 90% of the evidence relates to the effects of anticoagulant therapy initiated within the first 48 hours of onset. Based on 11 trials (22,776 participants) there was no evidence that anticoagulant therapy started within the first 14 days of stroke onset reduced the odds of death from all causes (odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.12) at the end of follow-up. Similarly, based on eight trials (22,125 participants), there was no evidence that early anticoagulation reduced the odds of being dead or dependent at the end of follow-up (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04). Although early anticoagulant therapy was associated with fewer recurrent ischaemic strokes (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88), it was also associated with an increase in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.95 to 3.33). Similarly, early anticoagulation reduced the frequency of symptomatic pulmonary emboli (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.81), but this benefit was offset by an increase in extracranial haemorrhages (OR 2.99; 95% CI 2.24 to 3.99).Authors' conclusionsSince the last version of the review, no new relevant studies have been published and so there is no additional information to change the conclusions. Early anticoagulant therapy is not associated with net short- or long-term benefit in people with acute ischaemic stroke. Treatment with anticoagulants reduced recurrent stroke, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, but increased bleeding risk. The data do not support the routine use of any of the currently available anticoagulants in acute ischaemic stroke.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The Pragmatic Ischaemic Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) trial was a multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone with IVT and adjunctive intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients who had acute ischaemic stroke with large artery occlusive anterior circulation stroke confirmed on CT angiography (CTA). DESIGN:Eligible patients had IVT started within 4.5?hours of stroke symptom onset. Those randomised to additional MT underwent thrombectomy using any Conformité Européene (CE)-marked device, with target interval times for IVT start to arterial puncture of <90?min. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving independence defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at day 90. RESULTS:Ten UK centres enrolled 65 patients between April 2013 and April 2015. Median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 (IQR 13-21). Median stroke onset to IVT start was 120?min. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in disability-free survival at day 90 with MT (absolute difference 11%, adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.94, p=0.20). Secondary analyses showed significantly greater likelihood of full neurological recovery (mRS 0-1) at day 90 (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.6 to 37.2, p=0.010). In the per-protocol population (n=58), the primary and most secondary clinical outcomes significantly favoured MT (absolute difference in mRS 0-2 of 22% and adjusted OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 19.7, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS:The trial did not find a significant difference between treatment groups for the primary end point. However, the effect size was consistent with published data and across primary and secondary end points. Proceeding as fast as possible to MT after CTA confirmation of large artery occlusion on a background of intravenous alteplase is safe, improves excellent clinical outcomes and, in the per-protocol population, improves disability-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01745692; Results.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with hyperglycaemia concomitant with an acute stroke have greater mortality, stroke severity, and functional impairment when compared with those with normoglycaemia at stroke presentation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.ObjectivesTo determine whether intensively monitoring insulin therapy aimed at maintaining serum glucose within a specific normal range (4 to 7.5 mmol/L) in the first 24 hours of acute ischaemic stroke influences outcome.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), Science Citation Index (1900 to September 2013), and Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge) (1993 to September 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers and SCOPUS.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensively monitored insulin therapy versus usual care in adults with acute ischaemic stroke.Data collection and analysisWe obtained a total of 1565 titles through the literature search. Two review authors independently selected the included articles and extracted the study characteristics, study quality, and data to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) of outcome measures. We resolved disagreements by discussion.Main resultsWe included 11 RCTs involving 1583 participants (791 participants in the intervention group and 792 in the control group). We found that there was no difference between the treatment and control groups in the outcomes of death or dependency (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23) or final neurological deficit (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01). The rate of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was higher in the intervention group (OR 14.6, 95% CI 6.6 to 32.2). In the subgroup analyses of diabetes mellitus (DM) versus non-DM, we found no difference for the outcomes of death and disability or neurological deficit. The number needed to treat was not significant for the outcomes of death and final neurological deficit. The number needed to harm was nine for symptomatic hypoglycaemia.Authors' conclusionsAfter updating the results of our previous review, we found that the administration of intravenous insulin with the objective of maintaining serum glucose within a specific range in the first hours of acute ischaemic stroke does not provide benefit in terms of functional outcome, death, or improvement in final neurological deficit and significantly increased the number of hypoglycaemic episodes. Specifically, those people whose glucose levels were maintained within a tighter range with intravenous insulin experienced a greater risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia than those people in the control group.