TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic-search-and-review of registered pharmacological therapies investigated to improve neuro-recovery after a stroke
AU - Lee, Tsong Hai
AU - Uchiyama, Shinichiro
AU - Kusuma, Yohanna
AU - Chiu, Hou Chang
AU - Navarro, Jose C.
AU - Tan, Kay Sin
AU - Pandian, Jeyaraj
AU - Guo, Liang
AU - Wong, Yoko
AU - Venketasubramanian, Narayanaswamy
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 Lee, Uchiyama, Kusuma, Chiu, Navarro, Tan, Pandian, Guo, Wong and Venketasubramanian.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Stroke burden is largely due to long-term impairments requiring prolonged care with loss of productivity. We aimed to identify and assess studies of different registered pharmacological therapies as treatments to improve post-stroke impairments and/or disabilities. Methods: We performed a systematic-search-and-review of treatments that have been investigated as recovery-enhancing or recovery-promoting therapies in adult patients with stroke. The treatment must have received registration or market authorization in any country regardless of primary indication. Outcomes included in the review were neurological impairments and functional/disability assessments. “The best available studies” based on study design, study size, and/or date of publication were selected and graded for level of evidence (LOE) by consensus. Results: Our systematic search yielded 7,801 citations, and we reviewed 665 full-text papers. Fifty-eight publications were selected as “the best studies” across 25 pharmacological classes: 31 on ischemic stroke, 21 on ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, 4 on intracerebral hemorrhage, and 2 on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Twenty-six were systematic reviews/meta-analyses, 29 were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and three were cohort studies. Only nimodipine for SAH had LOE A of benefit (systematic review and network meta-analysis). Many studies, some of which showed treatment effects, were assessed as LOE C-LD, mainly due to small sample sizes or poor quality. Seven interventions had LOE B-R (systematic review/meta-analysis or RCT) of treatment effects. Conclusion: Only one commercially available treatment has LOE A for routine use in stroke. Further studies of putative neuroprotective drugs as adjunctive treatment to revascularization procedures and more confirmatory trials on recovery-promoting therapies will enhance the certainty of their benefit. The decision on their use must be guided by the clinical profile, neurological impairments, and target outcomes based on the available evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=376973, PROSPERO, CRD42022376973.
AB - Background: Stroke burden is largely due to long-term impairments requiring prolonged care with loss of productivity. We aimed to identify and assess studies of different registered pharmacological therapies as treatments to improve post-stroke impairments and/or disabilities. Methods: We performed a systematic-search-and-review of treatments that have been investigated as recovery-enhancing or recovery-promoting therapies in adult patients with stroke. The treatment must have received registration or market authorization in any country regardless of primary indication. Outcomes included in the review were neurological impairments and functional/disability assessments. “The best available studies” based on study design, study size, and/or date of publication were selected and graded for level of evidence (LOE) by consensus. Results: Our systematic search yielded 7,801 citations, and we reviewed 665 full-text papers. Fifty-eight publications were selected as “the best studies” across 25 pharmacological classes: 31 on ischemic stroke, 21 on ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, 4 on intracerebral hemorrhage, and 2 on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Twenty-six were systematic reviews/meta-analyses, 29 were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and three were cohort studies. Only nimodipine for SAH had LOE A of benefit (systematic review and network meta-analysis). Many studies, some of which showed treatment effects, were assessed as LOE C-LD, mainly due to small sample sizes or poor quality. Seven interventions had LOE B-R (systematic review/meta-analysis or RCT) of treatment effects. Conclusion: Only one commercially available treatment has LOE A for routine use in stroke. Further studies of putative neuroprotective drugs as adjunctive treatment to revascularization procedures and more confirmatory trials on recovery-promoting therapies will enhance the certainty of their benefit. The decision on their use must be guided by the clinical profile, neurological impairments, and target outcomes based on the available evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=376973, PROSPERO, CRD42022376973.
KW - evidence
KW - neuro-restoration
KW - recovery
KW - rehabilitation
KW - review
KW - stroke
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185320628&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fneur.2024.1346177
DO - 10.3389/fneur.2024.1346177
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85185320628
SN - 1664-2295
VL - 15
JO - Frontiers in Neurology
JF - Frontiers in Neurology
M1 - 1346177
ER -