Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage [STITCH(Trauma)] : the first randomized trial

Acknowledgements This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 07/37/16). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Surgical trial in traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (STITCH(Trauma)) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Update on the Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH II):Statistical analysis plan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous studies had suggested that the outcome for patients with spontaneous lobar intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and no intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) might be improved with early evacuation of the haematoma. The Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH II) set out to establish whether a policy of earlier surgical evacuation of the haematoma in selected patients with spontaneous lobar ICH would improve outcome compared to a policy of initial conservative treatment. It is an international, multi-centre, prospective randomised parallel group trial of early surgery in patients with spontaneous lobar ICH. Outcome is measured at six months via a postal questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Recruitment to the study began on 27 November 2006 and closed on 15 August 2012 by which time 601 patients had been recruited. The protocol was published in <it>Trials</it> (<url>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/12/1/124/</url>). This update presents the analysis plan for the study without reference to the unblinded data. The trial data will not be unblinded until after follow-up is completed in early 2013. The main trial results will be presented in spring 2013 with the aim to publish in a peer-reviewed journal at the same time.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The data from the trial will provide evidence on the benefits and risks of early surgery in patients with lobar ICH.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: ISRCTN22153967</p

Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH II) Protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Within the spectrum of spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage there are some patients with large or space occupying haemorrhage who require surgery for neurological deterioration and others with small haematomas who should be managed conservatively. There is equipoise about the management of patients between these two extremes. In particular there is some evidence that patients with lobar haematomas and no intraventricular haemorrhage might benefit from haematoma evacuation. The STICH II study will establish whether a policy of earlier surgical evacuation of the haematoma in selected patients will improve outcome compared to a policy of initial conservative treatment.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>an international multicentre randomised parallel group trial. Only patients for whom the treating neurosurgeon is in equipoise about the benefits of early craniotomy compared to initial conservative treatment are eligible. All patients must have a CT scan confirming spontaneous lobar intracerebral haemorrhage (≤1 cm from the cortex surface of the brain and 10-100 ml in volume). Any clotting or coagulation problems must be corrected and randomisation must take place within 48 hours of ictus. With 600 patients, the study will be able to demonstrate a 12% benefit from surgery (2p < 0.05) with 80% power.</p> <p>Stratified randomisation is undertaken using a central 24 hour randomisation service accessed by telephone or web. Patients randomised to early surgery should have the operation within 12 hours. Information about the status (Glasgow Coma Score and focal signs) of all patients through the first five days of their trial progress is also collected in addition to another CT scan at about five days (+/- 2 days). Outcome is measured at six months via a postal questionnaire to the patient. Primary outcome is death or severe disability defined using a prognosis based 8 point Glasgow Outcome Scale. Secondary outcomes include: Mortality, Rankin, Barthel, EuroQol, and Survival.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN22153967">ISRCTN22153967</a></p

Incidence and Prediction of Falls in Dementia: A Prospective Study in Older People

Falls are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in dementia, but there have been no prospective studies of risk factors for falling specific to this patient population, and no successful falls intervention/prevention trials. This prospective study aimed to identify modifiable risk factors for falling in older people with mild to moderate dementia.179 participants aged over 65 years were recruited from outpatient clinics in the UK (38 Alzheimer's disease (AD), 32 Vascular dementia (VAD), 30 Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), 40 Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD), 39 healthy controls). A multifactorial assessment of baseline risk factors was performed and fall diaries were completed prospectively for 12 months. Dementia participants experienced nearly 8 times more incident falls (9118/1000 person-years) than controls (1023/1000 person-years; incidence density ratio: 7.58, 3.11-18.5). In dementia, significant univariate predictors of sustaining at least one fall included diagnosis of Lewy body disorder (proportional hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for age and sex: 3.33, 2.11-5.26), and history of falls in the preceding 12 months (HR: 2.52, 1.52-4.17). In multivariate analyses, significant potentially modifiable predictors were symptomatic orthostatic hypotension (HR: 2.13, 1.19-3.80), autonomic symptom score (HR per point 0-36: 1.055, 1.012-1.099), and Cornell depression score (HR per point 0-40: 1.053, 1.01-1.099). Higher levels of physical activity were protective (HR per point 0-9: 0.827, 0.716-0.956).The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. Randomised controlled trials to assess such a strategy are a priority

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Survival curve showing time to first fall by diagnosis.

<p>Survival curve showing time to first fall by diagnosis.</p

Baseline characteristics by diagnosis: all participants

<p>SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Inter-quartile range; AD: Alzheimer's disease; VAD: Vascular dementia; DLB: Dementia with Lewy bodies; PDD: Parkinson's disease dementia; PD: Parkinson's disease. Denominators are given for prevalence (%) where data is incomplete.</p>*<p>Control vs. patients p = 0.457; Control vs. AD p = 0.036; control vs. VAD p = 0.027; Control vs. DLB p = 0.945; Control vs. PDD p = 0.031.</p>**<p>Control vs. all patient groups p<0.001. No significant differences between patient groups.</p>***<p>Control vs. AD p = 0.087; control vs. VAD p = 0.009; Control vs. DLB p = 0.005; Control vs. PDD p<0.001</p>†<p>Control vs. AD p = 0.013; control vs. VAD p<0.001; Control vs. DLB p = 0.001; Control vs. PDD p<0.001</p>††<p>Control vs. AD p = 0.481; control vs. VAD p<0.024; Control vs. DLB p<0.001; Control vs. PDD p<0.001</p>†††<p>Control vs. AD p = 0.063; control vs. VAD p = 0.001; Control vs. DLB p = 0.151; Control vs. PDD p<0.001</p>‡<p>Control vs. AD p = 0.098; control vs. VAD p<0.001; Control vs. DLB p = 0.001; Control vs. PDD p = 0.001</p>‡‡<p>Control vs. AD p = 0.234; control vs. VAD p<0.082; Control vs. DLB p<0.022; Control vs. PDD p<0.001</p