Comparative efficacy of Honghua class injections for treating acute ischemic stroke: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Background: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and disability. Clinical trials have shown that Honghua class injections (HCIs) combined with WM achieve better clinical efficacy than WM alone. In this study, we p...
Background: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and disability. Clinical trials have shown that Honghua class injections (HCIs) combined with WM achieve better clinical efficacy than WM alone. In this study, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of different HCIs combined with WM in treating AIS. Methods: First, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. From inception to 1 June 2022, a systematic literature search was conducted in multiple databases for the treatment of AIS with HCIs, including Honghua injection (HI), Safflower Yellow injection (SYI), Guhong injection (GHI), and Danhong injection (DHI). Subsequently, OpenBUGS 3.2.3 was applied to conduct a Bayesian algorithm, and Stata 16.0 was used to prepare the graphs. Multidimensional cluster analysis was performed using the “scatterplot3d” package in R 3.6.1 software. Results: In this NMA, a total of 120 eligible RCTs were included, involving 12,658 patients, and evaluating the clinical effectiveness rates, activities of daily living (ADL), hemorheological indexes, and adverse reactions (ADRs). DHI + WM was the best intervention for improving the clinical effectiveness rate. Moreover, cluster analysis demonstrated that DHI + WM and SYI + WM had better comprehensive therapeutic effects. As most of the included RCTs did not monitor ADRs, the safety of the HCIs remains to be further explored. Conclusion: DHI + WM and SYI + WM probably have a better clinical efficacy on AIS patients. Nevertheless, due to the limitation of this NMA, this conclusion may be biased. High-quality RCTs should be performed to validate our findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021229599