ABSTRACT
Introduction: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to conduct a comprehensive and complete search of electronic resources to investigate the role of administrating Chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) in improving complications following Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases were searched until the end of 2019. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies conducted on rats and mice and summarized the data. Using the STATA 14.0 software, the findings were reported as pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 34 preclinical studies were included. ChABC administration improves locomotion recovery after SCI (SMD=0.90; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.20; P<0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that the differences in the SCI model (P=0.732), the severity of the injury (P=0.821), the number of ChABC administrations (P=0.092), the blinding status (P=0.294), the use of different locomotor score (P=0.567), and the follow-up duration (P=0.750) have no effect on the efficacy of ChABC treatment. Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that prescribing ChABC has a moderate effect in improving locomotion after SCI in mice and rats. However, this moderate effect introduces ChABC as adjuvant therapy and not as primary therapy.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: There is still controversy about the effect of early hypothermia on the outcome of spinal cord injury (SCI). The aim of this review article is to investigate the effect of local or general hypothermia on improving the locomotion after traumatic SCI. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline and Embase) were searched from inception until May 7, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened and summarized the relevant experimental studies on hypothermia efficacy in traumatic SCI. The data were analyzed and the findings were presented as pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: 20 papers containing 30 separate experiments were included in meta-analysis. The onset of hypothermia varied between 0 and 240 minutes after SCI. Administration of hypothermia has a positive effect on locomotion following SCI (SMD=0.56 95% CI: 0.18-0.95, p=0.004). Subgroup analysis showed that general hypothermia improves locomotion recovery (SMD =0.89, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.36; p <0.0001), while local hypothermia does not have a significant effect on motor recovery (SMD=0.20, 95 % CI: -0.36-0.76, p=0.478). In addition, general hypothermia was found to affect motor recovery only if its duration was between 2 and 8 hours (SMD=0.89; p<0.0001) and the target temperature for induction of hypothermia was between 32 and 35° C (SMD=0.83; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: We found that general hypothermia improves locomotion after SCI in rats. Duration of induction and the target temperature are two essential considerations for general therapeutic hypothermia.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to perform an extensive search in databases to compare the efficacy of the intranasal administration of naloxone with its intramuscular/intravenous administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This meta-analysis included controlled trials conducted on the efficacy of naloxone administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. A search was carried out in electronic databases on relevant articles published by the end of 2018. After data collection, analyses were performed in STATA 14.0 software and the efficacy and side-effects of the two administration routes of naloxone, i.e. intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous, were compared. An overall effect size with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was provided for each section. RESULTS: Eventually, data from six studies were included in this meta-analysis. The success rate of the intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous administration of naloxone in the management of opioid overdose in pre-hospital settings was 82.54% (95% CI: 57.97 to 97.89%) and 80.39% (95% CI: 57.38 to 96.04%), respectively. There was no difference between injectable (intramuscular/intravenous) naloxone and intranasal naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose (Odds Ratio=1.01; 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.43; P=0.98). The onset of action of intranasal naloxone, however, was slightly longer than injectable naloxone (Standardized Mean Difference=0.63; 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.19; P=0.03). Additionally, the odds of needing a rescue dose was 2.17 times higher for intranasal naloxone than intramuscular/intravenous naloxone (OR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.09; P<0.0001). The prevalence of major side-effects was non-significant for both intranasal (0.00%) and intramuscular/intravenous (0.05%) routes of naloxone administration and there was no difference in the prevalence of major (OR=1.18; 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.69; P=0.777) and minor (OR=0.64; 95% CI: 0.17 to 2.34; P=0.497) side-effects between the two routes. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that intranasal naloxone is as effective as injectable naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose complications. Consequently, intranasal naloxone may be an appropriate alternative to injectable naloxone.
