Organisation of inhospital acute stroke care and minimum criteria for stroke care units. Recommendations of the Belgian Stroke Council

There is ample evidence front randomized trials that for patients with stroke, stroke unit care is superior to care ill general medical or neurological wards. This evidence, which has been adopted by international guidelines has to be implemented into daily stroke care. This consensus document prepared by the Belgian Stroke Council provides a set of minimum criteria to meet international standards for stoke care. It is intended to provide help ill the creation of stroke units in centers who do not currently have one and to provide a benchmark for centres already having organised stroke care

Long-term follow up of glatiramer acetate compassionate use in Belgium.

Between June 1995 and November 1998, 228 patients with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis started treatment with glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) 20 mg once daily in the frame of a "compassionate use" protocol in 15 Belgian centers. Following an average treatment period of 5.8 years, treating neurologists were requested to fill in follow-up forms indicating neurological disability status and side effects during the previous 6 months. These data were available for 134 patients. In this group, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) improved in 26.3% of patients. An additional 36.8% of patients remained neurologically stable. The Ambulation Index (AI) showed similar results: 12.5% of patients improved, 50% of patients remained stable, and 37.5% worsened. Only 10% of patients dropped out due to several reasons. The adverse events occurring in the period preceding the follow-up survey were non-serious and consistent with the current product information of glatiramer acetate. Among the 94 patients no longer followed-up in the compassionate program, reasons for lost to follow-up were obtained for 63; most of them (41) had stopped GA treatment or switched to another disease-modifying treatment. Overall these results are very similar to the ones reported in the extension study of the pivotal trial (Johnson et al., 2000), and indicate that patients treated with glatiramer acetate have a better outcome than expected on the basis of the natural course of the disease. Despite limitations of the study design, this report confirms the sustained efficacy of glatiramer acetate in reducing the disease progression in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated in day-to-day clinical practice

Comparison of levetiracetam and controlled-release carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy

We report the results of a prospective study of the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam, a new antiepileptic drug with a unique mechanism of action, in comparison with controlled-release carbamazepine as first treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy.Adults with > or =2 partial or generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the previous year were randomly assigned to levetiracetam (500 mg twice daily, n = 288) or controlled-release carbamazepine (200 mg twice daily, n = 291) in a multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority, parallel-group trial. If a seizure occurred within 26 weeks of stabilization, dosage was increased incrementally to a maximum of levetiracetam 1,500 mg twice daily or carbamazepine 600 mg twice daily. Patients achieving the primary endpoint (6-month seizure freedom) continued on treatment for a further 6-month maintenance period.At per-protocol analysis, 73.0\% (56.6\%) of patients randomized to levetiracetam and 72.8\% (58.5\%) receiving controlled-release carbamazepine were seizure free at the last evaluated dose (adjusted absolute difference 0.2\%, 95\% CI -7.8\% to 8.2\%) for > or =6 months (1 year). Of all patients achieving 6-month (1-year) remission, 80.1\% (86.0\%) in the levetiracetam group and 85.4\% (89.3\%) in the carbamazepine group did so at the lowest dose level. Withdrawal rates for adverse events were 14.4\% with levetiracetam and 19.2\% with carbamazepine.Levetiracetam and controlled-release carbamazepine produced equivalent seizure freedom rates in newly diagnosed epilepsy at optimal dosing in a setting mimicking clinical practice. This trial has confirmed in a randomized, double-blind setting previously uncontrolled observations that most people with epilepsy will respond to their first-ever antiepileptic drug at low dosage

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

BACKGROUN

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Background: Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event. <p/>Methods: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in 802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous 3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is registered, number ISRCTN66157730. <p/>Findings: 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·94–1·12). There was no evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban compared with aspirin (1147 [12%] vs 1045 [11%]; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02–1·21), but no significant differences in other safety endpoints. <p/>Interpretation: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost

Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.)