Dual antiplatelet therapy versus intravenous tissue plasminogen activator with acute minor ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of mexiletine versus placebo in patients with myotonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The rare nature of dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonia has limited the available evidence on the efficacy of mexiletine as a potential treatment. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mexiletine for both dystrophic and non-dystrophic myotonic patients. METHODS: The search was conducted on various electronic databases up to March 2023, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing mexiletine versus placebo in myotonic patients. A risk of bias assessment was carried out, and relevant data was extracted manually into an online sheet. RevMan software (version 5.4) was employed for analysis. RESULTS: A total of five studies, comprising 186 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that mexiletine was significantly more effective than placebo in improving stiffness score (SMD = - 1.19, 95% CI [- 1.53, - 0.85]), as well as in reducing hand grip myotonia (MD = - 1.36 s, 95% CI [- 1.83, - 0.89]). Mexiletine also significantly improved SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Score in patients with non-dystrophic myotonia only. Regarding safety, mexiletine did not significantly alter ECG parameters but was associated with greater gastrointestinal symptoms (GIT) compared to placebo (RR 3.7, 95% CI [1.79, 7.64]). Other adverse events showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: The results support that mexiletine is effective and safe in myotonic patients; however, it is associated with a higher risk of GIT symptoms. Due to the scarcity of published RCTs and the prevalence of GIT symptoms, we recommend further well-designed RCTs testing various drug combinations to reduce GIT symptoms.