IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0088440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy and Safety of Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke in China: A Network Meta-Analysis of 13289 Patients from 145 Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Bowen Yang
  • Jingpu Shi
  • Xin Chen
  • Bing Ma
  • Hao Sun

Abstract

Background: Many of these therapies have been compared against placebos, but have not been directly compared against each other. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of several commonly used drugs for AIS directly or indirectly. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to April 2013 for AIS therapies. The primary outcome measures were the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores and the clinical effective rate. A fixed-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression are performed; lastly, performed a mixed treatment comparison was performed through the Bayesian methods. Results: Outcome of Efficacy of therapies for acute ischemic stroke are as followed: All of the therapies mentioned above yielded results a more effective result than placebo, Sodium ozagrel (RR 3.86, 95%CI 3.18–4.61); Sodium ozagrel + edaravone (RR 9.60, 95%CI 7.04–13.06); Edaravone (RR 4.07, 95%CI 3.30–5.01); Edaravone + Kininogenase (RR 15.33, 95%CI 10.03–23.05). The significant difference in efficacy between edaravone monotherapy and Sodium ozagrel + edaravone was evident (RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.08–0.61) and was also significant between efficacy of edaravone + Kininogenase and Sodium ozagrel (RR 4.00, 95%CI 2.47–6.24). The differences between the risk and benefit were not significant when comparing Sodium ozagrel and edaravone or edaravone + Kininogenase and Sodium ozagrel + Edaravone for AIS. Outcome of the defect of neurological function: Placebo served a significant difference in treating the defects of neurological function compared with Sodium ozagrel (WMD = −3.11, 95%CI −4.43 to −1.79), Sodium ozagrel + edaravone (WMD = −6.25, 95%CI −7.96 to −4.54) and Edaravone + Kininogenase (WMD = −3.47, 95%CI −5.73 to −1.21). Conclusions: It provides that the efficacy of edaravone monotherapy in treatment was not more effective than Sodium ozagrel + edaravone.The efficacy of edaravone + Kininogenase monotherapy in treatment was more effective than Sodium ozagrel. Edaravone + Kininogenase and Sodium ozagrel + Edaravone appeared the most effective treatments. And Sodium ozagrel, Sodium ozagrel + edaravone, Edaravone + Kininogenase can improve the nerve dysfunction.

Suggested Citation

  • Bowen Yang & Jingpu Shi & Xin Chen & Bing Ma & Hao Sun, 2014. "Efficacy and Safety of Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke in China: A Network Meta-Analysis of 13289 Patients from 145 Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-5, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0088440
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088440
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088440&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0088440?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0088440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.