A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of glibenclamide in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage

Tiffany F. C. Kung; Cassandra M. Wilkinson; Lane J. Liddle; Frederick Colbourne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292033

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 9, 2023
21 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Anna-Leena Sirén, Editor PONE-D-23-17196A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Glibenclamide in Animal Models of Intracerebral HemorrhagePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kung, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 1. Please elaborate more in detail the exclusion criteria of each excluded paper. 2. On Introduction, page 5, lines 89-94 please elaborate more on the possible mechanisms that may explain the controversial findings in reference to reduction of brain edema and its effects on functional outcome and mortality of ICH. 3. Page 11, lines 110-114. Even if many experimental therapies seem to function in animal models of acute stroke, the translational gap should not be forgotten. The therapy options for ischemic stroke in the clinical setting are restricted to thrombolysis and trombectomy in selected patient cohorts. Please correct and reformulate the text. 4. Please also reformulate the ambiguous and misleading sentence on line 113 "Notably, unlike ischemic stroke, serum extrusion is a major cause of edema in ICH, which GLC should not affect". ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Anna-Leena Sirén Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The author wrote about the effect of Glibenclamide in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage. The paper exhibits a well-written and comprehensive investigation into the intricate relationship between Glibenclamide and ICH in animal models. The authors have provided an extensive discussion, which significantly contributes to our understanding of this important research area. Despite the shortage of analyzed studies, the paper demonstrates a commendable level of scientific rigor in its experimental design and data analysis. The methodology employed in this study is robust, and the systematic review procedures are meticulously described, facilitating reproducibility. The authors' discussion showcases a comprehensive understanding of the topic, as they skillfully interpret the experimental results and effectively relate them to existing knowledge in the field. However, there are several aspects that need to be explained more. We encourage the authors to address the following aspects to strengthen the impact of their study and ensure its relevance to the broader scientific community: 1. In the excluded full papers list, the author mentioned about “four papers were excluded for inappropriate patient populations, and one for using an excluded dosing regimen” Can the author explain more about this reason? 2. The author needs to add an introduction about the importance of defining a new treatment to reduce the edema since the use of diuretics is common in clinical practice. The use of glibenclamide in reducing edema in human patients with ICH and its comparison with common diuretics that are used to treat edema are interesting aspects to be compared. 3. It is mentioned in line 113 "Notably, unlike ischemic stroke, serum extrusion is a major cause of edema in ICH, which GLC should not affect". This line is mismatched with the reason why this systematic review needs to be done. How does the author explain or elaborate on this? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292033.r001
Revision 1
1 Sep 2023 Author Response Academic Editor: 1. Please elaborate more in detail the exclusion criteria of each excluded paper. • We have elaborated and added reasons and citations for each excluded paper in our Search Results section on page 14, lines 324-328. Further, we have added in justification for the exclusion of pre-ICH dosing regimens on page 9, lines 212-215. 2. On Introduction, page 5, lines 89-94 please elaborate more on the possible mechanisms that may explain the controversial findings in reference to reduction of brain edema and its effects on functional outcome and mortality of ICH. • We have added this information in on pages 5-6, lines 112-124. 3. Page 11, lines 110-114. Even if many experimental therapies seem to function in animal models of acute stroke, the translational gap should not be forgotten. The therapy options for ischemic stroke in the clinical setting are restricted to thrombolysis and trombectomy in selected patient cohorts. Please correct and reformulate the text. • We thank the editor for noting this misleading wording. We have fixed our wording in the original sentence on page 7, lines 146-147, and have added in a separate line clarifying that thrombectomy and thrombolysis remain the only clinically approved therapies for ischemic stroke on page 6, lines 138-140. 4. Please also reformulate the ambiguous and misleading sentence on line 113 "Notably, unlike ischemic stroke, serum extrusion is a major cause of edema in ICH, which GLC should not affect". • We have clarified our wording in this sentence on page 7, lines 150-152. Reviewer #1 The author wrote about the effect of Glibenclamide in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage. The paper exhibits a well-written and comprehensive investigation into the intricate relationship between Glibenclamide and ICH in animal models. The authors have provided an extensive discussion, which significantly contributes to our understanding of this important research area. Despite the shortage of analyzed studies, the paper demonstrates a commendable level of scientific rigor in its experimental design and data analysis. The methodology employed in this study is robust, and the systematic review procedures are meticulously described, facilitating reproducibility. The authors' discussion showcases a comprehensive understanding of the topic, as they skillfully interpret the experimental results and effectively relate them to existing knowledge in the field. However, there are several aspects that need to be explained more. We encourage the authors to address the following aspects to strengthen the impact of their study and ensure its relevance to the broader scientific community: 1. In the excluded full papers list, the author mentioned about “four papers were excluded for inappropriate patient populations, and one for using an excluded dosing regimen” Can the author explain more about this reason? • We have elaborated and added reasons and citations for each excluded paper in our Search Results section on page 14, lines 324-328. Further, we have added in justification for the exclusion of pre-ICH dosing regimens on page 9, lines 212-215. 2. The author needs to add an introduction about the importance of defining a new treatment to reduce the edema since the use of diuretics is common in clinical practice. The use of glibenclamide in reducing edema in human patients with ICH and its comparison with common diuretics that are used to treat edema are interesting aspects to be compared. • We have added in a paragraph elaborating on the treatment of edema in ICH and included the most common clinical management methods on page 7, from lines 153-169. As HTS and mannitol were not investigated in our systematic review, the section was kept brief, with references cited to guide readers who may be interested in reading about these therapies in more detail. 3. It is mentioned in line 113 "Notably, unlike ischemic stroke, serum extrusion is a major cause of edema in ICH, which GLC should not affect". This line is mismatched with the reason why this systematic review needs to be done. How does the author explain or elaborate on this? • We thank the reviewer for noting our confusing wording. Highlighting serum extrusion as something that occurs in ICH but not in ischemic stroke was meant to reinforce the importance of original research on GLC specifically in the context of ICH, rather than the meta-analysis itself. Due to key differences between stroke subtypes, it remains important that ischemic stroke results not be used to justify the use of GLC in ICH patients. We have elaborated on this in the manuscript on page 7, lines 147-152. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292033.r002
11 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Anna-Leena Sirén, Editor A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of glibenclamide in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage PONE-D-23-17196R1 Dear Dr. Kung, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Anna-Leena Sirén Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292033.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Sep 2023 Acceptance Letter - Anna-Leena Sirén, Editor PONE-D-23-17196R1 A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of glibenclamide in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage Dear Dr. Kung: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Anna-Leena Sirén Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292033.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .