Systematic reviews as a tool for planning and interpreting trials

Background Systematic reviews followed by ameta-analysis are carried out in medical research to combine the results of two or more related studies. Stroke trials have struggled to show beneficial effects and meta-analysis should be used more widely throughout the research process to either speed up the development of useful interventions, or halt more quickly research with hazardous or ineffective interventions. Summary of review. This review summarises the clinical research process and illustrates how and when systematic reviews may be used throughout the development programme. Meta-analyses should be performed after observational studies, preclinical studies in experimental stroke, and after phase I, II, and III clinical trials and phase IV clinical surveillance studies. Although meta-analyses most commonly work with summary data, they may be performed to assess relationships between variables (meta-regression) and, ideally, should utilise individual patient data. Meta-analysis techniques may alsoworkwith ordered categorical outcome data (ordinal meta-analysis) and be used to perform indirect comparisons where original trial data do not exist. Conclusion Systematic review/meta-analyses are powerful tools in medical research and should be used throughout the development of all stroke and other interventions

Relationship between therapeutic changes in blood pressure and outcomes in acute stroke: a metaregression

Both low and high blood pressure (BP) during the acute phase of stroke are associated independently with a poor outcome. Several small clinical trials have involved the alteration of BP and this study assessed the relationship between change in BP and functional outcome. Randomised controlled trials of interventions that would be expected, on pharmacological grounds, to alter BP in patients within one week of the onset of acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke were sought using electronic searches. Data were collected on BP and clinical outcome. The relationship between the difference in on-treatment BP and odds ratios (OR) for outcomes was assessed using meta-regression. Thirty-seven trials involving 9,008 patients were included. A ‘U’ or ‘J’ shaped relationship were found between on-treatment BP difference and early death, death at the end of 90 day follow up, and combined death or dependency at the end of follow up. Although outcomes were not significantly reduced at any level of change in BP, the lowest odds occurred at: early death (OR 0.87, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.54 to 1.23) - 8.1 mmHg; death at end of follow up (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.65) - 14.4 mmHg; and combined death or dependency at end of follow up (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.72) - 14.6 mmHg. Although large falls or increases in BP are associated with a worse outcome, modest reductions may reduce death, and combined death or dependency, although the confidence intervals are wide and compatible with overall benefit or hazard.

Dipyridamole plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the secondary prevention after TIA or stroke: a meta-analysis by risk

Objectives: Our aim was to study the effect of combination therapy with aspirin and dipyridamole (A+D) over aspirin alone (ASA) in secondary prevention after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin and to perform subgroup analyses to identify patients that might benefit most from secondary prevention with A+D. Data sources: The previously published meta-analysis of individual patient data was updated with data from ESPRIT (N=2,739); trials without data on the comparison of A+D versus ASA were excluded. Review methods: A meta-analysis was performed using Cox regression, including several subgroup analyses and following baseline risk stratification. Results: A total of 7,612 patients (5 trials) were included in the analyses, 3,800 allocated to A+D and 3,812 to ASA alone. The trial-adjusted hazard ratio for the composite event of vascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.92). Hazard ratios did not differ in subgroup analyses based on age, sex, qualifying event, hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke, ischemic heart disease, aspirin dose, type of vessel disease and dipyridamole formulation, nor across baseline risk strata as assessed with two different risk scores. A+D were also more effective than ASA alone in preventing recurrent stroke, HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 – 0.90). Conclusion: The combination of aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone in patients with TIA or ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin in the secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular events. This superiority was found in all subgroups and was independent of baseline risk. ---------------------------7dc3521430776 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="c14_creators_1_name_family" Halkes