4.5 Article

Role of aspirin in tuberculous meningitis: A randomized open label placebo controlled trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 293, 期 1-2, 页码 12-17

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.03.025

关键词

TBM; Aspirin; Antiplatelet; Vasculitis; Randomized controlled trial; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in preventing stroke and mortality in tuberculous meningitis (TBM). Methods: Patients with TBM diagnosed on the basis of clinical, MRI and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) criteria were randomized into aspirin 150 mg daily or placebo. All the patients received four drug antitubercular treatment- RHZE (rifampicin, isoniazide, pyrazinamide and ethambutol) with or without corticosteroid. The primary endpoint was MRI proven stroke at 3 months and secondary end points were mortality and functional outcome assessed by Barthel Index score at 3 months. The adverse drug reactions were also analyzed. Results: 118 TOM patients were randomized into aspirin and placebo groups. The baseline demographic, clinical (severity of meningitis. MRI and CSF changes) were not significantly different between the two groups. 19 (16.1%) patients lost from follow up. 21(33.3%) patients developed stroke after randomization which was insignificantly lesser in aspirin (24.2%) compared to the placebo group (43.3%; OR 0.42, 95%CI 0.12-1.39). Aspirin resulted in absolute risk reduction of stroke in 19.1% and significant reduction in mortality compared to placebo (21.7% Vs 43.4%, P=0.02). On binary logistic regression analysis, the age (OR 1.09, CI 1.03-1.14, P=0.001) was the only independent risk factor of stroke and aspirin was significantly related to survival (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.21-8.31). Aspirin was well tolerated and was not withdrawn in any patient because of side effects. Interpretation: Aspirin resulted in insignificantly lesser strokes and significantly reduced 3 month mortality in patients with TBM. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据