We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Risk of stroke in prescription and other amphetamine-type stimulants use: A systematic review.
Drug and Alcohol Review 2018 January
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) are a putative cause of stroke with high abuse potential. We aim to systematically review the association between use of ATS and stroke.
DESIGN AND METHODS: To assure a sensitive search strategy, a broad definition of ATS was used. Cochrane Plus, EMBASE, IBECS/Lilacs, ISI WOK, Medline and Scopus were searched through 2016. Three researchers independently reviewed studies (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). Validity and bias were appraised.
RESULTS: Of 3998 articles, four cohort studies and eight case-control studies (CCS) were selected; 11 focused on prescribed or over-the-counter ATS. Current ATS users showed a higher ischaemic stroke risk than non-users in two cohort studies {adjusted rate ratio = 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1, 2.4] and 3.4 [95% CI = 1.1, 10.6]}. One study observed increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in former users versus non-users [adjusted rate ratio = 2.3 (95% CI = 1.3, 4.1)]. Higher haemorrhagic stroke risk was seen in two CCS among women using ATS [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 16.6 (95% CI = 1.5, 182.2) and 3.9 (95% CI = 1.1, 13.1)]. All-stroke was negatively associated with ATS in another CCS [aOR = 0.4 (95% CI = 0.2, 0.8)] and positively associated in the only study on non-medical ATS [aOR = 3.8 (95% CI = 1.2, 12.6)]. Selection bias and uncontrolled confounding were common.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review on ATS and stroke. Limited epidemiological evidence suggests that ATS use increases stroke risk. Possible disparities in ATS effect across stroke type and higher effect in women deserve further clarification. Studies on non-medical ATS use should be a priority. [Indave BI, Sordo L, Bravo MJ, Sarasa-Renedo A, Fernández-Balbuena S, De la Fuente L, Sonego M, Barrio G. Risk of stroke in prescription and other amphetamine-type stimulants use: A systematic review. Drug Alcohol Rev 2018;37:56-69].
DESIGN AND METHODS: To assure a sensitive search strategy, a broad definition of ATS was used. Cochrane Plus, EMBASE, IBECS/Lilacs, ISI WOK, Medline and Scopus were searched through 2016. Three researchers independently reviewed studies (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). Validity and bias were appraised.
RESULTS: Of 3998 articles, four cohort studies and eight case-control studies (CCS) were selected; 11 focused on prescribed or over-the-counter ATS. Current ATS users showed a higher ischaemic stroke risk than non-users in two cohort studies {adjusted rate ratio = 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1, 2.4] and 3.4 [95% CI = 1.1, 10.6]}. One study observed increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in former users versus non-users [adjusted rate ratio = 2.3 (95% CI = 1.3, 4.1)]. Higher haemorrhagic stroke risk was seen in two CCS among women using ATS [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 16.6 (95% CI = 1.5, 182.2) and 3.9 (95% CI = 1.1, 13.1)]. All-stroke was negatively associated with ATS in another CCS [aOR = 0.4 (95% CI = 0.2, 0.8)] and positively associated in the only study on non-medical ATS [aOR = 3.8 (95% CI = 1.2, 12.6)]. Selection bias and uncontrolled confounding were common.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review on ATS and stroke. Limited epidemiological evidence suggests that ATS use increases stroke risk. Possible disparities in ATS effect across stroke type and higher effect in women deserve further clarification. Studies on non-medical ATS use should be a priority. [Indave BI, Sordo L, Bravo MJ, Sarasa-Renedo A, Fernández-Balbuena S, De la Fuente L, Sonego M, Barrio G. Risk of stroke in prescription and other amphetamine-type stimulants use: A systematic review. Drug Alcohol Rev 2018;37:56-69].
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app