PRISM II: an open-label study to assess effectiveness of dextromethorphan/quinidine for pseudobulbar affect in patients with dementia, stroke or traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 trials supporting dextromethorphan/quinidine (DM/Q) use as a treatment for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) were conducted in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or multiple sclerosis (MS). The PRISM II study provides additional DM/Q experience with PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Participants in this open-label, multicenter, 90-day trial received DM/Q 20/10 mg twice daily. The primary outcome was the Center for Neurologic Study-Lability Scale (CNS-LS), assessing change in PBA episode frequency and severity. The CNS-LS final visit score was compared to baseline (primary analysis) and to the response in a previously conducted placebo-controlled trial with DM/Q in patients with ALS or MS. Secondary outcomes included change in PBA episode count and Clinical Global Impression of Change with respect to PBA as rated by a clinician (CGI-C) and by the patient or caregiver (PGI-C). RESULTS: The study enrolled 367 participants with PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or TBI. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) CNS-LS score improved significantly from 20.4 (4.4) at baseline to 12.8 (5.0) at Day 90/Final Visit (change, -7.7 [6.1]; P < .001, 95 % CI: -8.4, -7.0). This magnitude of improvement was consistent with DM/Q improvement in the earlier phase-3, placebo-controlled trial (mean [95 % CI] change from baseline, -8.2 [-9.4, -7.0]) and numerically exceeds the improvement seen with placebo in that study (-5.7 [-6.8, -4.7]). Reduction in PBA episode count was 72.3 % at Day 90/Final Visit compared with baseline (P < .001). Scores on CGI-C and PGI-C showed that 76.6 and 72.4 % of participants, respectively, were "much" or "very much" improved with respect to PBA. The most frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (5.4 %), headache (4.1 %), urinary tract infection (2.7 %), and dizziness (2.5 %); 9.8 % had AEs that led to discontinuation. Serious AEs were reported in 6.3 %; however, none were considered treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: DM/Q was shown to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or TBI. The magnitude of PBA improvement was similar to that reported in patients with PBA secondary to ALS or MS, and the adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of DM/Q. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01799941, registered on 25 February 2013

Clinical presentation of patients with lower limb spasticity undergoing routine treatment with botulinum toxin: baseline findings from an international observational study

Objective: Describe how people with lower limb spasticity present for treatment in routine clinical practice. Methods: Prospective, observational study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04050527) of ambulatory adult patients (≥ 18 years) with unilateral lower limb spasticity (able to take ≥ 5 steps with or without assistance) presenting for routine spasticity management, including treatment with abobotulinumtoxinA. Results: The study population included 430 adults with lower limb spasticity. Despite their relatively young age (mean ± standard deviation 53.7 ± 13.9 years), only 20% of patients were employed. Most patients had an acquired brain injury due to cerebrovascular disease; 84.1% reported having concomitant upper limb spasticity. Using the Leg Activity Measure, most patients reported no or only mild difficulties in performing hygiene/positioning tasks, while 80.7% had at least mild difficulty with indoor ambulation and 90.5% had at least mild difficulty with walking outdoors. Sensory, communication and/or cognitive impairments were also common. At the first treatment cycle, 50.7% of patients set active function primary goals, including locomotion transferring or standing. Conclusion: These observations highlight the complexity of presentation that must be considered when setting treatment goals for lower limb spasticity and emphasize the types of impairment and activity (functional) limitations that treating teams may expect to encounter in their patients and should cover in their initial and follow-up assessments.

Death and Rehospitalization after Transient Ischemic Attack or Acute Ischemic Stroke: One-year Outcomes from the Adherence Evaluation of Acute Ischemic Stroke–Longitudinal Registry

Longitudinal data directly comparing the rates of death and rehospitalization of patients discharged after transient ischemic attack (TIA) versus acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are lacking. Data were analyzed from 2802 patients (TIA n = 552; AIS n = 2250) admitted to 100 U.S. hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines–Stroke and the Adherence Evaluation of Acute Ischemic Stroke–Longitudinal registry. The primary composite outcome was the adjusted rate of all-cause death and rehospitalization over 1 year after discharge. Four additional single or combined outcomes were explored. Compared with AIS, TIA patients were older (median 69 v 66 years; P = .007) and more likely female (53.3% v 44.2%; P < .0001). Secondary prevention medication use after hospital discharge was less intensive after TIA, with underuse for both conditions. All-cause death or rehospitalization at 1 year was similar for TIA and AIS patients (37.7% v 34.6%; P = .271); the frequency for TIA patients was higher after covariate adjustment (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.41). One-year all-cause mortality was similar among those with TIA compared to AIS patients (3.8% v 5.7%; P = .071; adjusted HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.52-1.42). All-cause rehospitalizations were higher for TIA compared to AIS patients (36.4% v 33.0%; P = .186; adjusted HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.02-1.42), but similar for stroke rehospitalizations (10.1% v 7.4%; P = .037; adjusted HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.997-1.92). Patients with TIA have similar or worse 12-month postdischarge risk of death or rehospitalization as compared with those with AIS. Outcomes after TIA and AIS might be improved with better adherence to secondary preventive guidelines

A Screening Tool to Identify Spasticity in Need of Treatment

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinically useful patient-reported screening tool for health care providers to identify patients with spasticity in need of treatment regardless of etiology. DESIGN: Eleven spasticity experts participated in a modified Delphi panel and reviewed and revised 2 iterations of a screening tool designed to identify spasticity symptoms and impact on daily function and sleep. Spasticity expert panelists evaluated items pooled from existing questionnaires to gain consensus on the screening tool content. The study also included cognitive interviews of 20 patients with varying spasticity etiologies to determine if the draft screening tool was understandable and relevant to patients with spasticity. RESULTS: The Delphi panel reached an initial consensus on 21 of 47 items for the screening tool and determined that the tool should have no more than 11 to 15 items and a 1-month recall period for symptom and impact items. After 2 rounds of review, 13 items were selected and modified by the expert panelists. Most patients (n = 16 [80%]) completed the cognitive interview and interpreted the items as intended. CONCLUSIONS: Through the use of a Delphi panel and patient interviews, a 13-item spasticity screening tool was developed that will be practical and easy to use in routine clinical practice

Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care: A 2019 Update

In 2005, the American Stroke Association published recommendations for the establishment of stroke systems of care and in 2013 expanded on them with a statement on interactions within stroke systems of care. The aim of this policy statement is to provide a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence evaluating stroke systems of care to date and to update the American Stroke Association recommendations on the basis of improvements in stroke systems of care. Over the past decade, stroke systems of care have seen vast improvements in endovascular therapy, neurocritical care, and stroke center certification, in addition to the advent of innovations, such as telestroke and mobile stroke units, in the context of significant changes in the organization of healthcare policy in the United States. This statement provides an update to prior publications to help guide policymakers and public healthcare agencies in continually updating their stroke systems of care in light of these changes. This statement and its recommendations span primordial and primary prevention, acute stroke recognition and activation of emergency medical services, triage to appropriate facilities, designation of and treatment at stroke centers, secondary prevention at hospital discharge, and rehabilitation and recovery