Jinhong Gong1,2, Jingjing Shang1, Hai Yu3, Qian Wan4, Dan Su1, Zhiqiang Sun5, Guangjun Liu6. 1. Department of Pharmacy, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China. 2. Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 3. Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Qingpu Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Radiotherapy, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China. jungler@sina.cn. 6. Department of Pharmacy, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China. liugj66@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of tirofiban for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains controversial. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and related international clinical trials registries through March 31, 2019, using the terms "tirofiban" and "stroke". All apparently unconfounded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with two arms comparing treatment with and without tirofiban for AIS were included in this review. Primary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), fatal ICH, mortality, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS 0-2) at 3 months. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 2914 AIS patients were identified. Pooled results showed that tirofiban treatment in AIS did not increase the risk of sICH (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.28; p = 0.75) or mortality (OR, 0.80; 95% CI; 0.64-1.02; p = 0.07). However, fatal ICH increased significantly in the tirofiban treatment group (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.38-5.85; p = 0.005), and subgroup analysis showed that tirofiban via intra-arterial (IA) administration was associated with increased risk of fatal ICH (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.12-7.55; p = 0.03), while intravenous (IV) administration was not (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 0.92-8.20; p = 0.07). In addition, tirofiban showed no obvious improvement in functional outcome (mRS 0-2) (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.71; p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Tirofiban seems to be safe in systemic treatment and may represent a potential choice for management of AIS. However, intra-arterial administration requires further adequately controlled studies in order to develop an appropriate protocol, similar to that in cardiology.
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of tirofiban for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains controversial. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and related international clinical trials registries through March 31, 2019, using the terms "tirofiban" and "stroke". All apparently unconfounded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with two arms comparing treatment with and without tirofiban for AIS were included in this review. Primary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), fatal ICH, mortality, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS 0-2) at 3 months. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 2914 AIS patients were identified. Pooled results showed that tirofiban treatment in AIS did not increase the risk of sICH (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.28; p = 0.75) or mortality (OR, 0.80; 95% CI; 0.64-1.02; p = 0.07). However, fatal ICH increased significantly in the tirofiban treatment group (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.38-5.85; p = 0.005), and subgroup analysis showed that tirofiban via intra-arterial (IA) administration was associated with increased risk of fatal ICH (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.12-7.55; p = 0.03), while intravenous (IV) administration was not (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 0.92-8.20; p = 0.07). In addition, tirofiban showed no obvious improvement in functional outcome (mRS 0-2) (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.71; p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Tirofiban seems to be safe in systemic treatment and may represent a potential choice for management of AIS. However, intra-arterial administration requires further adequately controlled studies in order to develop an appropriate protocol, similar to that in cardiology.
Authors: Nils Wahlgren; Niaz Ahmed; Antoni Dávalos; Gary A Ford; Martin Grond; Werner Hacke; Michael G Hennerici; Markku Kaste; Sonja Kuelkens; Vincent Larrue; Kennedy R Lees; Risto O Roine; Lauri Soinne; Danilo Toni; Geert Vanhooren Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Lili Zhao; Yating Jian; Tao Li; Heying Wang; Zhang Lei; Man Sun; Ye Li; Yiheng Zhang; Meijuan Dang; Wang Huqing; Sun Hong; Zhang Ru; Hongxing Zhang; Yi Jia; Luo Guogang; Zhang Guilian Journal: Biochem Res Int Date: 2020-04-27