Olga Slyusar, Ivan Maximov, Liudmila Babaskina, Liudmila Lobuteva
Olga Slyusar1*, Ivan Maximov2, Liudmila Babaskina3, Liudmila Lobuteva4
1Department of Pharmacy, Private Institution Educational Organization of Higher Education
“Medical University “Reaviz”, Moscow, Russian Federation.
2Department of Dermatology and Venereology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russian Federation.
3Department of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russian Federation.
4Department of Pharmacy Organization and Economics, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russian Federation.
Volume - 14,
Issue - 5,
Year - 2021
The study of drug efficacy is greatly importance, since the data obtained can be used as a scientific tool for re-evaluating drugs. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of cerebrolysin and piracetam in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The study included 124 patients with moderate acute ischemic stroke (AIS). All patients were divided into two experimental groups and one control group. The control group included 40 people receiving standard therapy (acetylsalicylic acid, lisinopril, nebivolol, pentoxifylline, L-lysine escinate). The cerebrolysin group consisted of 42 patients who additionally received cerebrolysin (10ml) in a volume of 200ml (0.9% NaCl) once a day. The piracetam group included 42 patients who additionally received piracetam (10ml) in a volume of 200ml (0.9% NaCl) three times a day. The course of inpatient treatment lasted 3 weeks. At the end of treatment, there was a significant (p <0.05) regression of neurological symptoms in patients with acute ischemic stroke in all comparison groups by 1.75 (p <0.05) times in the control group, by 1.85 (p < 0.05) in the cerebrolysin group and by 1.78 (p <0.05) in the piracetam group. There was no statistically significant intergroup difference (p> 0.05). The study results do not demonstrate clinical benefits of cerebrolysin and piracetam for treating acute ischemic stroke.
Cite this article:
Olga Slyusar, Ivan Maximov, Liudmila Babaskina, Liudmila Lobuteva. Ineffective Drugs: Cerebrolysin and Piracetam. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(5):2643-8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.00466
Olga Slyusar, Ivan Maximov, Liudmila Babaskina, Liudmila Lobuteva. Ineffective Drugs: Cerebrolysin and Piracetam. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(5):2643-8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.00466 Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2021-14-5-50
1. Bijl D. Rational pharmacotherapy, de-prescribing and green pharmacy. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy. 2019; 12: 100127.
2. Chauhan I, Yasir M, Kumari M, Verma M. The pursuit of rational drug use: Understanding factors and interventions. Pharmaspire. 2018; 10: 48-54.
3. Sarnak DO, Squires D, Kuzmak G, Bishop S. Paying for Prescription Drugs Around the World: Why Is the U.S. an Outlier? Issue brief (Commonwealth Fund). 2017; 1–14.
4. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J, Sarpatwari A. The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States. JAMA. 2016; 316(8): 858.
5. Charbonneau M., Gagnon MA. Surviving niche busters: Main strategies employed by Canadian private insurers facing the arrival of high-cost specialty drugs. Health Policy. 2018; 122(12): 1295-1301.
6. DSMgroup. Russian pharmaceutical market 2018. Annual report. Available from: https://dsm.ru/docs/analytics/report_2018_en.pdf
7. Smith DM, Friend C, Reeve J. Polypharmacy and rationalisation of medications. InnovAiT: Education and Inspiration for General Practice. 2020; 13(2): 87-93.
8. Kojima T, Akishita M, Nakamura T, Nomura K, Ogawa S, Iijima K. Polypharmacy as a risk for fall occurrence in geriatric outpatients. Geriatrics and Gerontology International. 2011; 12(3): 425–430.
9. Federal Service for Surveillance in Healthcare. On the results of the work of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Healthcare, territorial bodies of Roszdravnadzor in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and federal state budgetary institutions of Roszdravnadzor in 2015, plans for 2016 and the planning period. Available from: http://www.roszdravnadzor.ru/i/upload/images/ 2016/4/28/1461849076.10347-1-4927.pdf
10. Onakpoya IJ, Heneghan CJ, Aronson JK. Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature. BMC Medicine. 2016; 14(1).
11. Noh S, Janousek CL, Park JH. State strategies to address medicaid prescription spending: negotiated pricing vs price transparency. Health Economics, Policy, and Law. 2020; 1–15.
12. Kim SH, Ryu YJ, Cho NE, Kim AE, Chang J. Prescription Drug Price Paradox: Cost Analysis of Canadian Online Pharmacies versus US Medicare Beneficiaries for the Top 100 Drugs. Clinical Drug Investigation. 2017; 37(10): 957–963.
13. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics. 2016; 47: 20–33.
14. Chow CC, Huang Z. Demonstrating effectiveness or demonstrating not ineffectiveness – A potential solution for rare disease drug product development?, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. 2019; 29(5): 897-907.
15. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, Montastruc JL, Bagheri H. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2020; 16: 1-7.
16. Nelson MR, Johnson T, Warren L, Hughes AR, Chissoe SL, Xu CF. The genetics of drug efficacy: opportunities and challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2016; 17(4): 197–206.
17. Posokhova KA, Matvieieva OV. Impact of individual characteristics of an organism, pathological processes, and combined administration of medicinal products on their efficacy. Ukrainskyi Medychnyi Chasopys; 2018; 4(126): 14-18.
18. Misu T, Kortepeter CM, Muñoz MA, Wu E, Dal Pan GJ. An Evaluation of "Drug Ineffective" Postmarketing Reports in Drug Safety Surveillance. Drugs - Real World Outcomes. 2018; 5(2): 91–99.
19. Kim HJ, Jeong HE, Bae JH, Baek YH, Shin JY. Characteristics and trends of spontaneous reporting of therapeutic ineffectiveness in South Korea from 2000 to 2016. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(2): e0212905.
20. U.S. Food and Drug administration. Presentations for the September 20, 2018 Meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/ pediatric-advisory-committee/presentations-september-20-2018-meeting-pediatric-advisory-committee
21. Dutov AA. Ineffective drugs: the view of a clinical pharmacologist. Medicine and pharmacology. 2017; 1(46).
22. Rajah GB, Ding Y. Experimental neuroprotection in ischemic stroke: a concise review. Neurosurgical Focus. 2017; 42(4): E2.
23. Ziganshina LE, Abakumova T, Vernay L. Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; 4.
24. Phipps MS, Cronin CA. Management of acute ischemic stroke. BMJ. 2020; 368: l6983.
25. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, Adeoye OM, Bambakidis NC, Becker K. 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2018; 49(3): e46–e110.
26. Güngör L, Terzi M, Onar MK. Does long term use of piracetam improve speech disturbances due to ischemic cerebrovascular diseases? Brain and Language. 2011; 117(1): 23–27.
27. Ricci S, Celani MG, Cantisani TA, Righetti E. Piracetam for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012; 2.
28. Iakovleva LV, Rybka AV. Сerebroproteksiya in aspects evidence-based medicine: cerebrolysin and piracetam. Management, Economics and Baking in Pharmacy. 2013; 5 (31): 59-65.