ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) and Intravenous (IV) Tissue Plasminogen Activator (t-PA) in minor Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed observational studies and clinical trials comparing DAPT and IV t-PA in patients with minor AIS. Databases included PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Data extraction included study characteristics, patient demographics, and analyzed outcomes. RevMan 5.3 and OpenMetaAnalyst 2021 were used to analyze the data and assess heterogeneity, respectively. The risk of bias was determined using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included five studies with 3,978 DAPT-treated patients and 2,224 IV t-PA-treated patients. We found no significant differences in achieving modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores of 0-1 (OR 1.11, 95 % CI: 0.79, 1.55, p = 0.56) and 0-2 (OR 0.90, 95 % CI: 0.61, 1.31, p = 0.57), as well as combined mRS scores (OR 1.05, 95 % CI: 0.82, 1.34, p = 0.72). Similarly, there were no significant disparities between the two treatment groups in NIHSS score change from baseline (MD 0.32, 95 % CI: -0.35, 0.98, p = 0.35) and in mortality rates (OR 0.87, 95 % CI: 0.26, 2.93, p = 0.83). Notably, in comparison to the IV t-PA group, the DAPT group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of bleeding (OR 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.14, 0.69, p = 0.004) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.10, 95 % CI: 0.04, 0.26, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis found no significant differences in efficacy between DAPT and IV t-PA. However, DAPT demonstrated a significantly lower risk of sICH and bleeding compared with IV t-PA.
Subject(s)
Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy , Fibrinolytic Agents , Ischemic Stroke , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Thrombolytic Therapy , Tissue Plasminogen Activator , Humans , Ischemic Stroke/drug therapy , Ischemic Stroke/diagnosis , Ischemic Stroke/mortality , Tissue Plasminogen Activator/adverse effects , Tissue Plasminogen Activator/administration & dosage , Fibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Fibrinolytic Agents/administration & dosage , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome , Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy/adverse effects , Thrombolytic Therapy/adverse effects , Thrombolytic Therapy/mortality , Risk Factors , Male , Female , Aged , Middle Aged , Risk Assessment , Disability Evaluation , Administration, Intravenous , Recovery of Function , Observational Studies as Topic , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Rett syndrome is a rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorder that predominantly impacts females. It presents with loss of acquired skills, impaired communication, and stereotypic hand movements. Given the limited treatment options for Rett syndrome, there is a dire need for effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of trofinetide in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that report on Rett syndrome patients. METHODS: We identified 109 articles from four databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL). After removing the duplicates, we narrowed them down to 59 articles for further assessment. We included RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of trofinetide in patients with Rett syndrome. Three studies were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers evaluated the identified studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracting pertinent data. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. We then conducted a meta-analysis using the fixed effects model in the case of insignificant heterogeneity; otherwise, we used the random effects model. Based on the nature of the outcome, we analyzed the mean difference or the odds ratio. Analysis was conducted using RevMan version 5.3. RESULTS: Among the analyzed outcomes in 181 patients in the trofinetide group and 134 patients in the placebo group, significant improvement in Rett Syndrome Behavior Questionnaire (RSBQ) scores was observed at 200 mg dosage (overall mean difference: -3.53, p = 0.001). Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores improved considerably at 200 mg dosage (overall mean difference: -0.34, p < 0.0001). No substantial changes were observed in Motor Behavioral Assessment (MBA) or Top 3 Caregiver Concerns. We evaluated Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) across the various dosages and noted significant associations with diarrhea (200 mg), vomiting (200 mg), and irritability (200 mg). However, we did not find a significant association between any of the dosages and the incidence of decreased appetite. CONCLUSION: Trofinetide demonstrated potential in improving RSBQ and CGI-I scores at 200 mg dosage. Although no substantial changes were found in MBA and top 3 caregiver concerns. Adverse events were linked to specific dosages.
