Bipolar disorder and the risk for stroke incidence and mortality: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder (BD) may be associated with an increased risk of stroke, but to date, the results of the studies are still controversial. This study aimed to assess the association of BD with stroke incidence and mortality by a meta-analysis. METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library databases, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to July 2020. We regarded stroke as a composite endpoint. The pooled hazard ratio (HRs) of 95% confidence interval (Cls) was calculated. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the potential sources of heterogeneity of the pooled estimation. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies involving a total of 13,305,007 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed participants with BD experienced a significantly increased risk of both stroke incidence (combined HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66; p = 0.000) and stroke mortality (combined HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09-2.18; p = 0.013) compared to participants without BD. In addition, the pooled estimate of multivariate HRs of stroke incidence and mortality were 1.35 (95% CI: 1.26-1.45); 2.30 ( 95% CI: 1.37-3.85) among men and 1.43 (95% CI:1.27-1.60); 2.08 (95% CI:1.60-2.71) among women respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that BD may modestly increase the risk of both stroke incidence and mortality. Extensive clinical observational studies should be conducted in the future to explore whether BD is a potentially modifiable risk factor for stroke.

Efficacy and Safety of Gabapentin vs. Carbamazepine in the Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Meta-Analysis.

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of gabapentin in comparison with carbamazepine in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed study quality, and extracted data. Sixteen randomized controlled trials that included 1,331 patients were assessed. The meta-analysis showed that the total effective rate of gabapentin therapy group was similar with carbamazepine therapy group (OR = 1.600, 95% CI 1.185, 2.161, P = 0.002). While the effective rate of gabapentin therapy for 4 weeks was higher than that of carbamazepine therapy (OR = 1.495, 95% CI 1.061, 2.107, P = 0.022, heterogeneity: x2 = 7.12, P = 0.625, I2 = 0.0%), the life satisfaction improvement is also better in the gabapentin therapy group after a 4-week treatment (SMD = 0.966, 95% CI 0.583, 1.348, P < 0.001). Furthermore, our meta-analysis suggested that the adverse reaction rate of gabapentin therapy group was significantly lower than that of carbamazepine therapy group (OR = 0.312, 95% CI 0.240, 0.407, P < 0.001). In conclusion, present trials comparing gabapentin with carbamazepine are all poor in terms of methodological quality. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy and side effects of gabapentin being superior to carbamazepine.