Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Drug and Alcohol Review, 1(37), p. 56-69

DOI: 10.1111/dar.12559

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Risk of stroke in prescription and other amphetamine‐type stimulants use: A systematic review

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractIntroduction and AimsAmphetamine‐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 MethodsTo 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.ResultsOf 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 ConclusionsThis 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]