Thrombolysis is associated with consistent functional improvement across baseline stroke severity: a comparison of outcomes in patients from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA)

<p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> Baseline stroke severity predicts outcomes among thrombolysed patients. The baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) thresholds are sometimes used to select patients for thrombolysis, clinical trial enrollment, or both. Using data lodged with Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive, we compared adjusted outcomes between thrombolysed and nonthrombolysed patients enrolled in neuroprotection trials (1998-2007) to assess the influence of various levels of baseline NIHSS.</p> <p><b>Method:</b> We assessed the association of treatment with outcome, measured across the modified Rankin scale score distribution, in patients categorized by baseline NIHSS in increments of 4. We used an age and baseline NIHSS adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test followed by proportional odds logistic regression analysis. We report the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel P values and estimated odds ratios (OR) for improved modified Rankin scale score distribution with treatment for patients within each baseline NIHSS category.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Data were available for 5817 patients (1585 thrombolysed and 4232 nonthrombolysed). Baseline severity was greater among thrombolysed than nonthrombolysed (median baseline NIHSS, 14 vs 13; P<0.05). An association of treatment with outcome was seen independently and was of similar magnitude within each of the baseline NIHSS categories 5 to 8 (P=0.04; OR, 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.6; N=278/934 thrombolysed/nonthrombolysed), 9 to 12 (P=0.01; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; N=404/942), 13 to 16 (P<0.05; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; N=342/814), 17 to 20 (P<0.05; OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; N=311/736), and 21 to 24 (P<0.05; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; N=178/466). No association was observed within baseline NIHSS categories 1 to 4 (P=0.8; OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.3-4.4; N=8/161) or >= 25 (P=0.08; OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.9; N=64/179).</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> In this nonrandomized comparison, outcomes after thrombolysis were significantly better than in untreated comparators across baseline NIHSS 5 to 24. The significant association was lost only at extremes of baseline NIHSS when sample sizes were small and confidence limits were wide.</p&gt

Urinary proteomics for prediction of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria

Background: The urinary proteomic classifier CKD273 has shown promise for prediction of progressive diabetic nephropathy (DN). Whether it is also a determinant of mortality and cardiovascular disease in patients with microalbuminuria (MA) is unknown. Methods: Urine samples were obtained from 155 patients with type 2 diabetes and confirmed microalbuminuria. Proteomic analysis was undertaken using capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry to determine the CKD273 classifier score. A previously defined CKD273 threshold of 0.343 for identification of DN was used to categorise the cohort in Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression models with all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint. Outcomes were traced through national health registers after 6 years. Results: CKD273 correlated with urine albumin excretion rate (UAER) (r = 0.481, p = <0.001), age (r = 0.238, p = 0.003), coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (r = 0.236, p = 0.003), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (r = 0.190, p = 0.018) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (r = 0.265, p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis only UAER (β = 0.402, p < 0.001) and eGFR (β = − 0.184, p = 0.039) were statistically significant determinants of CKD273. Twenty participants died during follow-up. CKD273 was a determinant of mortality (log rank [Mantel-Cox] p = 0.004), and retained significance (p = 0.048) after adjustment for age, sex, blood pressure, NT-proBNP and CAC score in a Cox regression model. Conclusion: A multidimensional biomarker can provide information on outcomes associated with its primary diagnostic purpose. Here we demonstrate that the urinary proteomic classifier CKD273 is associated with mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes and MA even when adjusted for other established cardiovascular and renal biomarkers

Urinary proteomics for prediction of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria

Background: The urinary proteomic classifier CKD273 has shown promise for prediction of progressive diabetic nephropathy (DN). Whether it is also a determinant of mortality and cardiovascular disease in patients with microalbuminuria (MA) is unknown. Methods: Urine samples were obtained from 155 patients with type 2 diabetes and confirmed microalbuminuria. Proteomic analysis was undertaken using capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry to determine the CKD273 classifier score. A previously defined CKD273 threshold of 0.343 for identification of DN was used to categorise the cohort in Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression models with all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint. Outcomes were traced through national health registers after 6 years. Results: CKD273 correlated with urine albumin excretion rate (UAER) (r = 0.481, p = <0.001), age (r = 0.238, p = 0.003), coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (r = 0.236, p = 0.003), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (r = 0.190, p = 0.018) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (r = 0.265, p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis only UAER (β = 0.402, p < 0.001) and eGFR (β = − 0.184, p = 0.039) were statistically significant determinants of CKD273. Twenty participants died during follow-up. CKD273 was a determinant of mortality (log rank [Mantel-Cox] p = 0.004), and retained significance (p = 0.048) after adjustment for age, sex, blood pressure, NT-proBNP and CAC score in a Cox regression model. Conclusion: A multidimensional biomarker can provide information on outcomes associated with its primary diagnostic purpose. Here we demonstrate that the urinary proteomic classifier CKD273 is associated with mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes and MA even when adjusted for other established cardiovascular and renal biomarkers

Rolf Mantel and the Computability of General Equilibria: On the Origins of the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu Theorem

In this brief paper we revise the original motivations of Rolf Mantel to pursue a proof of Sonnenschein´s conjecture. We contend that his work on computational models of general equilibrium lead him to seek an alternative to the usual fixed point theorems used in proofs of existence. Confronted with a paper of Uzawa and his own experience in programming a national planning system he found that the use of theorems like Brouwer´s and Kakutani´s was unavoidable. To check out whether Uzawa was right he sought to find out whether the only properties required of excess demand functions to ensure the existence of equilibria in competitive markets were continuity, homogeneity and Walras´ law. In 1974, he found that this was actually the case. We will see that this result and his interpretation were informed by Mantel´s interest in economic development and planning.Fil: Tohmé, Fernando

Levosimendan for patients with severely reduced left ventricular systolic function and/or low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery. a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Previous studies have shown beneficial effects of levosimendan in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Two large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, showed no advantages of levosimendan. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (MEDLINE and Embase from inception until March 30, 2017), investigating whether levosimendan offers advantages compared with placebo in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, as defined by preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) = 35% and/or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). The primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and need for postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT). Secondary postoperative outcomes investigated included myocardial injury, supraventricular arrhythmias, development of LCOS, acute kidney injury (AKI), duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and incidence of hypotension during drug infusion. Results: Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, five of which investigated only patients with LVEF = 35% and one of which included predominantly patients with LCOS. Mortality was similar overall (OR 0.64 [0.37, 1.11], p = 0.11) but lower in the subgroup with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.51 [0.32, 0.82], p = 0.005). Need for RRT was reduced by levosimendan both overall (OR 0.63 [0.42, 0.94], p = 0.02) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.55 [0.31, 0.97], p = 0.04). Among secondary outcomes, we found lower postoperative LCOS in patients with LVEF < 35% receiving levosimendan (OR 0.49 [0.27, 0.89], p = 0.02), lower overall AKI (OR 0.62 [0.42, 0.92], p = 0.02), and a trend toward lower mechanical support, both overall (p = 0.07) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (p= 0.05). Conclusions: Levosimendan reduces mortality in patients with preoperative severely reduced LVEF but does not affect overall mortality. Levosimendan reduces the need for RRT after high-risk cardiac surger

Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome – when, why, and how?

Open Access Research article Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome – when, why, and how? Brennan C Kahan Correspondence: Brennan C Kahan [email protected] Author Affiliations Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH, UK BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014, 14:20 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-20 The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/20 Received: 5 July 2013 Accepted: 3 February 2014 Published: 10 February 2014 © 2014 Kahan; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. Formula display: Abstract Background It is often desirable to account for centre-effects in the analysis of multicentre randomised trials, however it is unclear which analysis methods are best in trials with a binary outcome. Methods We compared the performance of four methods of analysis (fixed-effects models, random-effects models, generalised estimating equations (GEE), and Mantel-Haenszel) using a re-analysis of a previously reported randomised trial (MIST2) and a large simulation study. Results The re-analysis of MIST2 found that fixed-effects and Mantel-Haenszel led to many patients being dropped from the analysis due to over-stratification (up to 69% dropped for Mantel-Haenszel, and up to 33% dropped for fixed-effects). Conversely, random-effects and GEE included all patients in the analysis, however GEE did not reach convergence. Estimated treatment effects and p-values were highly variable across different analysis methods. The simulation study found that most methods of analysis performed well with a small number of centres. With a large number of centres, fixed-effects led to biased estimates and inflated type I error rates in many situations, and Mantel-Haenszel lost power compared to other analysis methods in some situations. Conversely, both random-effects and GEE gave nominal type I error rates and good power across all scenarios, and were usually as good as or better than either fixed-effects or Mantel-Haenszel. However, this was only true for GEEs with non-robust standard errors (SEs); using a robust ‘sandwich’ estimator led to inflated type I error rates across most scenarios. Conclusions With a small number of centres, we recommend the use of fixed-effects, random-effects, or GEE with non-robust SEs. Random-effects and GEE with non-robust SEs should be used with a moderate or large number of centres

Use of Most Bothersome Symptom as a Coprimary Endpoint in Migraine Clinical Trials: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the Pivotal ZOTRIP Randomized, Controlled Trial.

ObjectiveTo better understand the utility of using pain freedom and most bothersome headache-associated symptom (MBS) freedom as co-primary endpoints in clinical trials of acute migraine interventions.BackgroundAdhesive dermally applied microarray (ADAM) is an investigational system for intracutaneous drug administration. The recently completed pivotal Phase 2b/3 study (ZOTRIP), evaluating ADAM zolmitriptan for the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine, was one of the first large studies to incorporate MBS freedom and pain freedom as co-primary endpoints per recently issued guidance by the US Food and Drug Administration. In this trial, the proportion of patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg, who were pain-free and MBS-free at 2 hours post-dose, was significantly higher than for placebo.MethodsWe undertook a post-hoc analysis of data from the ZOTRIP trial to examine how the outcomes from this trial compare to what might have been achieved using the conventional co-primary endpoints of pain relief, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.ResultsOf the 159 patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg or placebo, prospectively designated MBS were photophobia (n = 79), phonophobia (n = 43), and nausea (n = 37). Two-hour pain free rates in those with photophobia as the MBS were 36% for ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg and 14% for placebo (P = .02). Corresponding rates for those with phonophobia as the MBS were 14% and 41% (P = .05). For those whose MBS was nausea, corresponding values were 56% and 16%, respectively (P = .01). Two-hour freedom from the MBS for active drug vs placebo were 67% vs 35% (P &lt; .01) for photophobia, 55% vs 43% (P = .45) for phonophobia, and 89% vs 58% for nausea (P = .04). MBS freedom but not pain freedom was achieved in 28%. Only 1 patient (1%) achieved pain freedom, but not MBS freedom. The proportion with both pain and MBS freedom was highest (56%) among those whose MBS was nausea.ConclusionIn this study, the use of MBS was feasible and seemed to compare favorably to the previously required 4 co-primary endpoints

Additional outcomes and subgroup analyses of NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke in the SAINT I trial

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Background and Purpose:&lt;/b&gt; NXY-059 is a free radical-trapping neuroprotectant demonstrated to reduce disability from ischemic stroke. We conducted analyses on additional end points and sensitivity analyses to confirm our findings.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Methods:&lt;/b&gt; We randomized 1722 patients with acute ischemic stroke to a 72-hour infusion of placebo or intravenous NXY-059 within 6 hours of stroke onset. The primary outcome was disability at 90 days, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (no residual symptoms) to 5 (bed-bound, requiring constant care). Additional and exploratory analyses included mRS at 7 and 30 days; subgroup interactions with final mRS; assessments of activities of daily living by Barthel index; and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) neurological scores at 7 and 90 days.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; NXY-059 significantly improved the distribution of the mRS disability score compared with placebo at 7, 30, and 90 days (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test P=0.002, 0.004, 0.038, respectively; 90-day common odds ratio 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42). The benefit was not attributable to any specific baseline characteristic, stratification variable or subgroup interaction. Neurological scores were improved at 7 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13, 1.89; P=0.003) and the Barthel index was improved at 7 and 30 days (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.22, 1.98; P&#60;0.0001; OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01, 1.59; P=0.02).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/b&gt; NXY-059 within 6 hours of acute ischemic stroke significantly reduced disability. Benefit on neurological scores and activities of daily living was detectable early but not significant at 90 days; however, our trial was underpowered to measure effects on the neurological examination. The benefit on disability is not confounded by interactions and is supported by other outcome measures.&lt;/p&gt