Search

Background: Many observational studies have examined the association between statins and the incidence of Parkinson's disease (PD) in high‐risk populations. On the other hand, clinical trials as well as other observational studies investigated the safety and efficacy of statins in slowing disease progression in PD patients. However, the evidence has been inconclusive in both questions. To that end, we conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize evidence on the role of statins in decreasing the risk of PD among high‐risk populations and as a possible disease‐modifying agent for patients with PD. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science has been performed. Relevant studies were chosen and data were extracted and analyzed using RevMan software version 5.4.1. Results: Twenty‐five studies (14 cohort, 9 case–control, and 2 randomized controlled trials) have been included in the present systematic review. Of them, 21 studies reported the association between statins and PD risk. Statins were found to significantly reduce the risk of developing PD (pooled RR 0.86, 95% CI [0.77–0.95], p < 0.005). Four studies investigated statins as a disease‐modifying agent. The pooled mean difference (MD) in the UPDRS‐III from baseline to endpoint did not differ significantly between the statin and control groups (MD −1.34 points, 95% CI [−3.81 to 1.14], p = 0.29). Conclusion: Although epidemiological observational studies showed that statin use was associated with a reduced risk of PD, current evidence is insufficient to support the role of statins in slowing the progression of PD. These findings are limited by the fact that most of the included studies are observational studies which carry a high risk of confounding bias which highlights the need for future well‐designed RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The treatment of acute ischemic stroke due to large artery vessel occlusion experienced a dramatic development within the last decade. This meta-analysis investigates the effectiveness of bridging therapy (BT) versus mechanical thrombectomy (MT) alone in treating acute ischemic stroke. Methods: Two independent reviewers assessed two-arm clinical trials from Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2024. Data extraction and quality were evaluated using the ROBINS-2 tool. Our primary outcomes were improvement in NIHSS scores and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Results: This meta-analysis, which included 2,638 participants from 8 randomized controlled trials, found that BT resulted in a greater improvement in NIHSS scores from baseline compared to endovascular treatment alone (mean difference [MD] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.73–1.20], p < 0.00001). Additionally, BT group achieved successful recanalization more frequently before and after thrombectomy. Thrombectomy alone hat a shorter time from stroke onset to groin puncture compared to BT (MD 9.91, 95% CI: [4.31–15.52], p = 0.005). Functional outcomes, mortality rates, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage rates, and long-term recovery metrics, such as Barthel index and modified Rankin Scale scores, were comparable between both treatment approaches. Conclusion: BT is superior to endovascular treatment alone based on NIHSS score improvement and successful reperfusion rates before and after thrombectomy. Despite MT alone demonstrating a shorter time from stroke onset to groin puncture (MD of 9.91 min), it did not contribute to greater NIHSS improvement at 24 h and 7 days. Further trials with larger sample sizes are warranted to enhance precision in clinical guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]