Atormac
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 1725  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (2,773 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed260    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded58    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 67  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 993-1002

Role of Aspirin in Tuberculous Meningitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis


Department of Neurology, King George Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication10-Sep-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ravindra K Garg
Department of Neurology, King George Medical University, Lucknow - 226 003, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.266232

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Objectives: Aspirin is a drug that has been found to be useful in reducing the incidence of infarctions. This systemic is aimed at review evaluating the benefits of aspirin in the management of tuberculous meningitis.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SCOPUS for articles published on or before September 22, 2018. The meta-register of controlled trials and bibliography was also searched. Randomized controlled trials wherein aspirin was used were included in the systematic review. The data was extracted using a predetermined format. The risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data was calculated and a random-effects model was used to combine the data. Death and occurrence of new infarctions were considered as primary outcomes. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Results: Four trials including 546 patients were found eligible. The addition of aspirin to anti-tuberculosis drug regimens did not significantly reduce mortality [RR = 0.66 (0.42–1.02); low-quality evidence] but significantly reduced the risk of new infarctions [RR = 0.52 (0.29–0.92); moderate-quality evidence]. Aspirin did not differ from the placebo with regard to the adverse event outcome.
Conclusion: Aspirin reduces the risk of new infarctions in patients with tuberculous meningitis but does not affect mortality (moderate-to-low level of evidence).


Keywords: Aspirin, infarctions, stroke, tuberculous meningitis
Key Message: High quality evidence evaluating the role of aspirin in tuberculous meningitis is missing. Aspirin may be used to reduce the risk of new infarcts but does not seem to provide mortality benefit.


How to cite this article:
Rizvi I, Garg RK, Malhotra HS, Kumar N, Uniyal R. Role of Aspirin in Tuberculous Meningitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurol India 2019;67:993-1002

How to cite this URL:
Rizvi I, Garg RK, Malhotra HS, Kumar N, Uniyal R. Role of Aspirin in Tuberculous Meningitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurol India [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 22];67:993-1002. Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2019/67/4/993/266232




The prognosis of tuberculous meningitis is poor as approximately half of the affected patients die or suffer from severe disabilities.[1],[2] Unfortunately, the major principles of tuberculous meningitis management are based on observational studies and clinical practices rather than clinical trials.[2] Two important cornerstones in this management are the prompt initiation of anti-tuberculosis treatment and administration of adjunctive corticosteroids.[3]

Strokes or infarctions are common complications of tuberculous meningitis that contribute to neurological deficit and worsen the prognosis.[4] Infarctions occur in 15–57% of such patients.[5],[6],[7],[8] The vessels most commonly involved are the proximal middle cerebral artery, medial lenticulostriate arteries, and thalamoperforating arteries. The infarctions in tuberculous meningitis are caused by tuberculous arteritis and entrapment of large-sized arteries in thick basal exudates, leading to arterial spasm and/or thrombosis.[4] Cerebral infarctions are predictors of poor outcome of tuberculous meningitis [8] and are associated with poor neuro-developmental outcome in patients with childhood tuberculous meningitis.[9] Unfortunately, strategies to prevent and manage infarctions in tuberculous meningitis are unclear.

Aspirin is an anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits the activity of cyclooxygenases.[10] It is the cornerstone of antiplatelet therapy for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.[11] However, its role in the prevention or management of stroke in tuberculous meningitis is unclear. A recent Vietnamese trial has suggested that the addition of aspirin to the anti-tuberculosis drug regimen improves the outcome of patients with tuberculous meningitis. However, the addition of aspirin showed no significant benefits in terms of reduction in mortality or prevention of new infarctions.[12] A previous trial has demonstrated that aspirin reduces mortality in adult patients with tuberculous meningitis,[13] whereas another has shown that aspirin does not reduce mortality and morbidity in childhood tuberculous meningitis.[14]

Considering these uncertainties, we conducted this systematic review to assess the role of adjuvant aspirin in treating tuberculous meningitis. The research question formulated for this review was as follows: Does the addition of aspirin to the anti-tuberculosis treatment regimen improve the outcome (in terms of mortality/occurrence of new infarctions) of patients with tuberculous meningitis?


 » Methods Top


Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Only randomized controlled trials were included in this review. No language restriction was applied.

Participants

Patients of any age diagnosed with tuberculous meningitis were considered. Diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis was based on clinical, cerebrospinal fluid, and neuroimaging features.

Types of intervention

Intervention group: Aspirin in any dose in addition to the standard anti-tuberculosis treatment.

Control group: Standard anti-tuberculosis treatment without aspirin.

Types of outcome

Death and occurrence of new infarctions confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging were considered as the primary outcome measures. In principle, magnetic resonance imaging was used to define an infarct so that focal neurological deficits occurring subsequent to the presence of tuberculoma, abscess, raised intracranial pressure, etc., could be appropriately labeled and silent infarcts could be detected with this modality. Persisting neurological disability, as reported by the authors at the end of follow-up, and adverse drug reactions, as defined by the authors, were considered as the secondary outcome measures.

Search method for identifying relevant studies

The published medical literature was systematically searched to identify all relevant trials. The electronic databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without any limitations on year or language. Articles published till September 2018 were included in the review. The keywords used for searching the databases were “Tuberculous meningitis” OR “Tubercular meningitis” OR “Meningeal Tuberculosis” AND “Aspirin” OR “Acetylsalicylic acid” [Table 1]. SCOPUS was also searched using “Tuberculous meningitis” AND “Aspirin” as keywords. Clinical Trials Registry (www.ctri.nic.in, accessed on September 22, 2018) and Current Control Trials (www.controlled-trials.com; accessed on September 22, 2018) were searched using “tuberculosis” and “meningitis” as search terms. Subsequently, reference lists of all shortlisted trials were checked. Finally, the proceedings of annual conferences with available online data were searched. The searches were performed independently by two authors. Any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion.
Table 1: Search strategy for online database

Click here to view


Study selection and data extraction

Two reviewers independently (IR, RKG) selected the studies based on the above-mentioned criteria, and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion. Selection of studies was performed in two steps. In the first step, the two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. In the second step, full articles of the selected studies were obtained. Any subsequent exclusion was recorded with a relevant reason.

Data extraction was independently performed by the two reviewers (IR, HSM) using a pre-formed data extraction sheet. The extracted data included bibliographic information (author, year), participants' characteristics, diagnostic criteria, stage of tuberculous meningitis, HIV status, doses and durations of aspirin administered, anti-tuberculosis regimens in the intervention and control arms, and outcome measures.

Risk of bias assessment

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used by the two reviewers (IR, HSM) for independently assessing the risk of bias in each included study.[15] Conflicts were discussed with the third reviewer (RKG) and the post-discussion consensus was adopted. Each study was assessed for selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias, and reporting bias. These biases were further classified into low risk, unclear risk, and high risk. The findings were plotted on a risk-of-bias graph using RevMan software (Review Manager (RevMan; computer program) Version 5.3; Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).

Data analysis

Risk ratio (RR) was used as the measure of treatment effect. The RR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for all primary and secondary outcomes. The overall treatment effect was calculated using a random-effects model. This model was used because both clinical and methodological heterogeneities were expected between the trials. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using visual inspection of the forest plots as well as χ2-test and I2 statistics. An I2 value of ≥50% and a P value of <0.10 in the χ2-test were considered to indicate statistical heterogeneity. The data were analyzed using the RevMan software version 5.3 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).

For the purpose of this analysis, the aspirin doses were classified into two categories: a dose of ≤150 mg/day was defined as low, and that of >150 mg/day was defined as high. Publication bias was not assessed using the funnel plot because of the small number of trials.

Assessment of the quality of evidence

The quality of evidence for primary outcomes (death and new infarctions) was assessed using the GRADE approach.[16]


 » Results Top


A total of 72 studies were identified by searching the above-mentioned sources and 56 studies remained after eliminating the duplicate titles. The screening of titles and abstracts further excluded 45 articles. Seven more articles were excluded as they either were not randomized controlled trials or did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, four articles that met the inclusion criteria were included [Figure 1].[12],[13],[14],[17]
Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the meta-analysis

Click here to view


Included studies

All included studies were randomized controlled trials. Two trials were double-blind trials,[12],[14] one open-label trial,[13] and one with an undefined label.[17] One study was from Vietnam,[12] one from India,[13] one from South Africa,[14] and one from Pakistan [Table 2].[17]
Table 2: Summary of included studies (listed year-wise)

Click here to view


Participants

The four included trials comprised of 546 patients in total. The trial by Schoeman et al. also included an arm of nonrandomized patients (N = 29); this arm was excluded from the meta-analysis as the patients were already taking aspirin at the time of randomization.[14] Of the total 546 randomized patients, 315 received aspirin and 231 received placebo. Of the 315 patients who received aspirin, 145 received a low dose (≤150 mg/day) and 170 received a high dose (>150 mg/day). Two trials included adult patients,[12],[13] while the other two trials included only children < 15 years old.[14],[17] Further, 283 (51.83%) of the 546 patients were males. The classification of the severity of tuberculous meningitis was as follows: 87 patients had stage I infection, 210 had stage II, and 249 had stage III. In total, 177 patients were microbiologically confirmed as having tuberculous meningitis [Table 2].

Intervention

The doses and durations of aspirin administered in the included trials are summarized in [Table 3]. Mai et al. used two doses of aspirin, namely 81 and 1000 mg/day, in their trial.[12] Misra et al. used a dose of 150 mg/day.[13] Schoeman et al. also used two doses: 75 mg/day and 100 mg/kg/day.[14] Amin et al. used 60 mg/kg/day of aspirin.[17] The doses and durations of anti-tuberculosis drugs and steroids used are also summarized in [Table 3].
Table 3: Dose and duration of aspirin in the included studies (listed year-wise)

Click here to view


Follow-up

Three trials reported the observations of the follow-up period. The primary outcomes were assessed at 60 days in the trial by Mai et al.[12] The follow-up period was 3 and 6 months in the trials by Misra et al. and Schoeman et al., respectively.[13],[14] The follow-up period was not described in the study by Amin et al.[17]

Outcome measures

Death was reported in all included trials. New infarctions were reported in two trials;[12],[13] one trial reported events in the form of hemiplegia, instead of infarctions per se.[14] Disability assessment was reported in three trials, although all of them used different methods for assessing disability.[12],[13],[14] Adverse events were reported in three trials.[12],[13],[14] A few other outcome measures were also reported in the trials but were not considered in this review.

Assessment of the risk of bias

The methods of randomization were adequately reported in only three trials.[12],[13],[17] Allocation concealment was adequately described in two trials.[12],[14] Adequate blinding of participants and personnel was performed in only two trials.[12],[14] Blinding of the outcome assessment was properly described in one trial, which was classified as having a low risk of detection bias.[12] The rest of the three trials did not clearly describe the blinding of the outcome assessment, but this bias might not affect the assessment of mortality. Therefore, all these trials were classified as having an unclear risk of detection bias. One trial reported >10% loss to follow-up and was therefore classified as having a high risk of attrition bias.[13] The trials all reported the outcomes mentioned in the Methods section and were therefore classified as having a low risk of reporting bias [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Individual studies and their risk of bias

Click here to view


Effects of intervention

Death

Death was reported in all four trials. The pooled analysis revealed 40 (12.70%) deaths among the patients receiving adjuvant aspirin compared with 53 (22.94%) deaths in the control arm. However, the difference in the number of deaths between the two arms was not statistically significant (RR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.42–1.02). In addition, no significant statistical heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 17%) [Table 4] and [Figure 3].
Table 4: Summary of effects of intervention

Click here to view
Figure 3: Forest plot showing the comparison of mortality estimates between the aspirin and control arms

Click here to view


Pediatric and adult trials were analyzed separately. The trials by Mai et al. and Misra et al. included adults and their pooled analysis showed no significant difference in the number of deaths between the aspirin and control arms (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.28–1.01). The trials by Amin et al. and Schoeman et al. included children and their pooled analysis also showed no significant difference in the number of deaths between the aspirin and control arms (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.34–2.39). No significant difference was observed in the number of deaths between the low-/high-dose aspirin arm and the control arm [Table 4] and [Figure 3].

New infarctions

Unequivocal infarctions, confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging, during follow-up were reported in two trials.[12],[13] The pooled analysis revealed that 15 (15%) patients in the aspirin arm developed new infarctions compared with 21 (32.31%) patients in the control arm. Thus, the addition of aspirin significantly reduced the occurrence of new infarctions (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.29–0.92). No significant statistical heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 0%).

The comparison between the low-dose aspirin and control arms showed a significant reduction in the occurrence of new infarctions (RR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26–0.95). However, the comparison between high-dose aspirin and control arms showed no such significant reduction (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.21–1.64) [Table 4] and [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Forest plot showing the comparison of estimates related to occurrence of new infarctions between the aspirin and control arms

Click here to view


Disability

All three trials which included a disability assessment used different scales to quantify disability. Therefore, it was not possible to pool the data and perform a meta-analysis. None of the trials reported a better outcome in terms of disability.

Adverse events

Adverse drug reactions were reported in only three trials.[12],[13],[14] Only Mai et al. reported the number and type of adverse events for aspirin and control arms separately. Gastrointestinal bleeding events occurred in 20% patients in the aspirin arm and 13.2% patients in the control arm; this difference was not statistically significant.[12] Intracranial bleeding was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging in only one patient in the aspirin arm. No significant difference was noted in the occurrence of other side-effects, such as allergic reactions and gastrointestinal, hepatic, cardiac, or respiratory events.[12] Forest plot showed comparison of adverse events [Figure 5]. Misra et al. reported 33 adverse events: vomiting in 28 patients, epigastric discomfort in 1 patient, rashes in 4 patients, and jaundice and altered liver function in 28 patients; the authors did not provide a break-up of these events according to the individual study arms but stated that no significant difference was observed in the occurrence of these events between the two arms.[13] Schoeman et al. reported hematemesis in one patient and intracranial bleeding in one patient; the details of others adverse events were not mentioned.[14]
Figure 5: Forest plot showing the comparison of adverse drug reactions

Click here to view


Quality of evidence

The assessment of the quality of evidence as per the GRADE approach is summarized in [Table 5].
Table 5: Summary of findings and quality of evidence (GRADE)

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


Despite adequate treatment using anti-tuberculosis drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids, morbidity and mortality in patients with tuberculous meningitis remain high. Host-directed therapies, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin, can be beneficial in the management of tuberculosis.[18],[19]

This systematic review assessed the benefits and disadvantages of adding aspirin to the first-line anti-tuberculosis drug regimen. Four relevant studies which met the inclusion criteria and comprised of 546 patients in total were included. These trials included both males and females as well as children and adults. The trials also included microbiologically confirmed and unconfirmed cases. The follow-up period ranged from 60 to 180 days.

The pooled analysis of the results of these trials revealed that the addition of aspirin to the anti-tuberculosis regimen does not significantly reduce mortality. Two trials included only children,[14],[17] whereas the two trials included only adults.[12],[13] To make our comparison more homogenous, we analyzed the pediatric and adult trials separately as well; however, this stratified analysis did not demonstrate the superiority of aspirin over placebo in reducing mortality [Table 4].

In the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases, aspirin reduces deaths, ischemic strokes, and myocardial infarction.[20] However, we found no benefit of aspirin in reducing mortality among patients with tuberculous meningitis. Aspirin is commonly prescribed in two doses. The low doses of aspirin (75–150 mg) inhibit platelet aggregation and can prevent ischemic cerebrovascular diseases.[21] In contrast, the high doses of aspirin (>150 mg) have anti-inflammatory effects through the inhibition of pro-inflammatory prostaglandins and thromboxane A2.[22] The trials included in our study also used aspirin at different doses. Mai et al. and Schoeman et al. used both low and high doses.[12],[14] Misra et al. used only the low dose,[13] whereas Amin et al. used only the high dose.[17] A subgroup analysis based on the aspirin dose revealed no significant reduction in mortality using the low or high doses of aspirin compared with that using the placebo [Table 4]. It may be reiterated that the dose schedules used in the trials listed are arbitrary and there is no scientific explanation to the low-dose versus high-dose regimen. Additionally, there have been no transitional dosage schedules to judge the outcomes related with intermediate doses. Even the drug-and-dosage regimen of anti-tuberculosis medication and steroids, across the trials, is not uniform.

Notably, the addition of aspirin leads to a significant reduction in the risk of new infarctions among patients with tuberculous meningitis.[12],[13] The pooled analysis revealed that approximately 15% patients developed new infarctions in the aspirin arm compared with approximately 32% patients in the control arm. Thus, the addition of aspirin led to approximately 17% absolute risk reduction in the occurrence of new infarctions. This is equal to a number needed to treat approximately six patients, indicating that approximately six patients with tuberculous meningitis need to be treated with adjunctive aspirin to prevent the occurrence of one new infarction. Further, the subgroup analysis performed based on the aspirin dose revealed that the addition of a low dose of aspirin significantly reduces the risk of occurrence of new infarctions [Table 4]; this finding has important implications for reducing the risk of infarctions in tuberculous meningitis.

We did not pool disability as an outcome because different trials used different methods for assessing disability. Thus, the effect of aspirin on disability could not be determined. We speculate that the prevention of new infarctions affects disability. A recently conducted retrospective study found that adjunctive aspirin can improve the outcome of patients with tuberculous meningitis; however, this study was not included in the meta-analysis as it was not done in a randomized controlled fashion.[23]

Aspirin use was not associated with a significant increase in adverse effects, such as allergic reactions and gastrointestinal, hepatic, cardiac, or respiratory events. No significant increase was noted in gastrointestinal or intracranial bleeding in the aspirin arm compared with that in the control arm.[12] These estimates were available from a single trial only as the other trials did not provide a detailed breakup of adverse events. However, the safety of high-dose aspirin appears to be established to a considerable extent.

We used a random-effects model for pooling of data as we expected the effect size to differ between the trials due to differences in age distribution and severity of tuberculous meningitis as well as slight differences in the doses and durations of aspirin.[24] Our main comparisons revealed no significant statistical heterogeneity. Furthermore, we could not perform a subgroup analysis based on the classification of tuberculous meningitis (definite versus the rest), severity of disease, HIV status, and drug resistance categories as sufficient data was not available from the included trials.

The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence for death and occurrence of new infarctions.[16] We found low-quality evidence for the effect of adjuvant aspirin in reducing mortality, indicating that it is not superior to the anti-tuberculosis drug regimen alone in reducing mortality. Thus, further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.[25] We found moderate-quality evidence for the effect of adjuvant aspirin in preventing the occurrence of new infarctions, indicating that its addition to the standard regimen helps in preventing their occurrence. Thus, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.[25]

In conclusion, aspirin reduces the risk of new infarctions in patients with tuberculous meningitis but does not alter the risk of death. The evidence found in our review is of moderate-to-low quality. Thus, further research is warranted to formulate a better evidence-based recommendation.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Jarvis JN, Meintjes G, Williams A, Brown Y, Crede T, Harrison TS. Adult meningitis in a setting of high HIV and TB prevalence: Findings from 4961 suspected cases. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:67.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Thwaites GE, van Toorn R, Schoeman J. Tuberculous meningitis: More questions, still too few answers. Lancet Neurol 2013;12:999-1010.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Prasad K, Singh MB, Ryan H. Corticosteroids for managing tuberculous meningitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD002244.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Lammie GA, Hewlett RH, Schoeman JF, Donald PR. Tuberculous cerebrovascular disease: A review. J Infect 2009;59:156-66.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ozateş M, Kemaloglu S, Gürkan F, Ozkan U, Hoşoglu S, Simşek MM. CT of the brain in tuberculous meningitis. A review of 289 patients. Acta Radiol 2000;41:13-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Chan KH, Cheung RT, Lee R, Mak W, Ho SL. Cerebral infarctions complicating tuberculous meningitis. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005;19:391-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Shukla R, Abbas A, Kumar P, Gupta RK, Jha S, Prasad KN. Evaluation of cerebral infarction in tuberculous meningitis by diffusion weighted imaging. J Infect 2008;57:298-306.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kalita J, Misra UK. Outcome of tuberculous meningitis at 6 and 12 months: A multiple regression analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3:261-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Springer P, Swanevelder S, van Toorn R, van Rensburg AJ, Schoeman J. Cerebral infarction and neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood tuberculous meningitis. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2009;13:343-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Paez Espinosa EV, Murad JP, Khasawneh FT. Aspirin: Pharmacology and clinical applications. Thrombosis 2012;2012:173124.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Goli RR, Contractor MM, Nathan A, Tuteja S, Kobayashi T, Giri J. Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of vascular disease complications. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2017;19:56.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Mai NT, Dobbs N, Phu NH, Colas RA, Thao LT, Thuong NT, et al. A randomised double blind placebo controlled phase 2 trial of adjunctive aspirin for tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected adults. eLife 2018;7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Misra UK, Kalita J, Nair PP. Role of aspirin in tuberculous meningitis: A randomized open label placebo-controlled trial. J Neurol Sci 2010;293:12-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Schoeman JF, Janse van Rensburg A, Laubscher JA, Springer P. The role of aspirin in childhood tuberculous meningitis. J Child Neurol 2011;26:956-62.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Amin M, Naeem MM, Raza A. The effect of aspirin on mortality in tuberculous meningitis. Medical Forum Monthly (Pakistan) 2017;28:149-52.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kroesen VM, Gröschel MI, Martinson N, Zumla A, Maeurer M, van der Werf TS, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as host-directed therapy for tuberculosis: A systematic review. Front Immunol 2017;8:772.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Tobin DM, Roca FJ, Oh SF, McFarland R, Vickery TW, Ray JP, et al. Host genotype-specific therapies can optimize the inflammatory response to mycobacterial infections. Cell 2012;148:434-46.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Raju N, Sobieraj-Teague M, Hirsh J, O'Donnell M, Eikelboom J. Effect of aspirin on mortality in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Am J Med 2011;124:621-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Richman IB, Owens DK. Aspirin for primary prevention. Med Clin North Am 2017;101:713-24.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Botting RM. Vane's discovery of the mechanism of action of aspirin changed our understanding of its clinical pharmacology. Pharmacol Rep 2010;62:518-25.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Misra UK, Kalita J, Sagar B, Bhoi SK. Does adjunctive corticosteroid and aspirin therapy improve the outcome of tuberculous meningitis? Neurol India 2018;66:1672-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
24.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:97-111.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490.  Back to cited text no. 25
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow