Taking care of volunteers in a stroke trial: A new assisted-management strategy

Background and purpose: Providing participants with evidence-based care for secondary prevention is an ethical and scientific priority for trials in stroke therapy. The optimal strategy, however, is uncertain. We report the performance of a new approach for delivering preventive care to trial participants. Methods: Participants were enrolled in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial, which examined the insulin sensitiser, pioglitazone versus placebo for prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Preventive care was the responsibility of the participants\u27 personal healthcare providers, but investigators monitored care and provided feedback annually. We studied achievement of 8 prevention goals at baseline and 3 annual visits, with a focus on 3 priority goals: blood pressure \u3c140/90 mm Hg, lowdensity lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol \u3c2.59 mmol/L and antithrombotic therapy. Results: The proportion of participants achieving the priority goals was highest for antithrombotic use (96-99% in each year) and similar for blood pressure (66-72% in each year) and LDL (68-70% in each year). All 3 priority goals were achieved by 47-52% of participants in any given year. However, only 22% of participants achieved all 3 goals in each year. Conclusions: A strategy of monitoring care and providing feedback was associated with high average yearly achievement of 3 priority secondary prevention goals, but the majority of trial participants did not persist in being at goal over time

Pioglitazone for secondary prevention after ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack: Rationale and design of the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke Trial

Background: Recurrent vascular events remain a major source of morbidity and mortality after stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The IRIS Trial is evaluating an approach to secondary prevention based on the established association between insulin resistance and increased risk for ischemic vascular events. Specifically, IRIS will test the effectiveness of pioglitazone, an insulin-sensitizing drug of the thiazolidinedione class, for reducing the risk for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) among insulin resistant, nondiabetic patients with a recent ischemic stroke or TIA. Design: Eligible patients for IRIS must have had insulin resistance defined by a Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance \u3e3.0 without meeting criteria for diabetes. Within 6 months of the index stroke or TIA, patients were randomly assigned to pioglitazone (titrated from 15 to 45 mg/d) or matching placebo and followed for up to 5 years. The primary outcome is time to stroke or MI. Secondary outcomes include time to stroke alone, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes, cognitive decline, and all-cause mortality. Enrollment of 3,876 participants from 179 sites in 7 countries was completed in January 2013. Participant follow-up will continue until July 2015. Summary: The IRIS Trial will determine whether treatment with pioglitazone improves cardiovascular outcomes of nondiabetic, insulin-resistant patients with stroke or TIA. Results are expected in early 2016

Effects of oral anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation after spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage (COCROACH): prospective, individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background: The safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulation for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in people with atrial fibrillation and spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage are uncertain. We planned to estimate the effects of starting versus avoiding oral anticoagulation in people with spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation. // Methods: In this prospective meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries using the strategies of a Cochrane systematic review (CD012144) on June 23, 2023. We included clinical trials if they were registered, randomised, and included participants with spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation who were assigned to either start long-term use of any oral anticoagulant agent or avoid oral anticoagulation (ie, placebo, open control, another antithrombotic agent, or another intervention for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events). We assessed eligible trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We sought data for individual participants who had not opted out of data sharing from chief investigators of completed trials, pending completion of ongoing trials in 2028. The primary outcome was any stroke or cardiovascular death. We used individual participant data to construct a Cox regression model of the time to the first occurrence of outcome events during follow-up in the intention-to-treat dataset supplied by each trial, followed by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect inverse-variance model to generate a pooled estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021246133. // Findings: We identified four eligible trials; three were restricted to participants with atrial fibrillation and intracranial haemorrhage (SoSTART [NCT03153150], with 203 participants) or intracerebral haemorrhage (APACHE-AF [NCT02565693], with 101 participants, and NASPAF-ICH [NCT02998905], with 30 participants), and one included a subgroup of participants with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ELDERCARE-AF [NCT02801669], with 80 participants). After excluding two participants who opted out of data sharing, we included 412 participants (310 [75%] aged 75 years or older, 249 [60%] with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≤4, and 163 [40%] with CHA2DS2-VASc score >4). The intervention was a direct oral anticoagulant in 209 (99%) of 212 participants who were assigned to start oral anticoagulation, and the comparator was antiplatelet monotherapy in 67 (33%) of 200 participants assigned to avoid oral anticoagulation. The primary outcome of any stroke or cardiovascular death occurred in 29 (14%) of 212 participants who started oral anticoagulation versus 43 (22%) of 200 who avoided oral anticoagulation (pooled HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·42–1·10]; I2=0%). Oral anticoagulation reduced the risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events (nine [4%] of 212 vs 38 [19%] of 200; pooled HR 0·27 [95% CI 0·13–0·56]; I2=0%). There was no significant increase in haemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular events (15 [7%] of 212 vs nine [5%] of 200; pooled HR 1·80 [95% CI 0·77–4·21]; I2=0%), death from any cause (38 [18%] of 212 vs 29 [15%] of 200; 1·29 [0·78–2·11]; I2=50%), or death or dependence after 1 year (78 [53%] of 147 vs 74 [51%] of 145; pooled odds ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·70–1·79]; I2=0%). // Interpretation: For people with atrial fibrillation and intracranial haemorrhage, oral anticoagulation had uncertain effects on the risk of any stroke or cardiovascular death (both overall and in subgroups), haemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular events, and functional outcome. Oral anticoagulation reduced the risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events, which can inform clinical practice. These findings should encourage recruitment to, and completion of, ongoing trials. // Funding: British Heart Foundation

Effects of oral anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation after spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage (COCROACH): prospective, individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background - The safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulation for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in people with atrial fibrillation and spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage are uncertain. We planned to estimate the effects of starting versus avoiding oral anticoagulation in people with spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation. Methods - In this prospective meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries using the strategies of a Cochrane systematic review (CD012144) on June 23, 2023. We included clinical trials if they were registered, randomised, and included participants with spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation who were assigned to either start long-term use of any oral anticoagulant agent or avoid oral anticoagulation (ie, placebo, open control, another antithrombotic agent, or another intervention for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events). We assessed eligible trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We sought data for individual participants who had not opted out of data sharing from chief investigators of completed trials, pending completion of ongoing trials in 2028. The primary outcome was any stroke or cardiovascular death. We used individual participant data to construct a Cox regression model of the time to the first occurrence of outcome events during follow-up in the intention-to-treat dataset supplied by each trial, followed by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect inverse-variance model to generate a pooled estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021246133. Findings - We identified four eligible trials; three were restricted to participants with atrial fibrillation and intracranial haemorrhage (SoSTART [NCT03153150], with 203 participants) or intracerebral haemorrhage (APACHE-AF [NCT02565693], with 101 participants, and NASPAF-ICH [NCT02998905], with 30 participants), and one included a subgroup of participants with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ELDERCARE-AF [NCT02801669], with 80 participants). After excluding two participants who opted out of data sharing, we included 412 participants (310 [75%] aged 75 years or older, 249 [60%] with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≤4, and 163 [40%] with CHA2DS2-VASc score >4). The intervention was a direct oral anticoagulant in 209 (99%) of 212 participants who were assigned to start oral anticoagulation, and the comparator was antiplatelet monotherapy in 67 (33%) of 200 participants assigned to avoid oral anticoagulation. The primary outcome of any stroke or cardiovascular death occurred in 29 (14%) of 212 participants who started oral anticoagulation versus 43 (22%) of 200 who avoided oral anticoagulation (pooled HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·42–1·10]; I2=0%). Oral anticoagulation reduced the risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events (nine [4%] of 212 vs 38 [19%] of 200; pooled HR 0·27 [95% CI 0·13–0·56]; I2=0%). There was no significant increase in haemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular events (15 [7%] of 212 vs nine [5%] of 200; pooled HR 1·80 [95% CI 0·77–4·21]; I2=0%), death from any cause (38 [18%] of 212 vs 29 [15%] of 200; 1·29 [0·78–2·11]; I2=50%), or death or dependence after 1 year (78 [53%] of 147 vs 74 [51%] of 145; pooled odds ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·70–1·79]; I2=0%). Interpretation - For people with atrial fibrillation and intracranial haemorrhage, oral anticoagulation had uncertain effects on the risk of any stroke or cardiovascular death (both overall and in subgroups), haemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular events, and functional outcome. Oral anticoagulation reduced the risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events, which can inform clinical practice. These findings should encourage recruitment to, and completion of, ongoing trials. Funding - British Heart Foundation

Defining Responses to Therapy and Study Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Invasive Fungal Diseases: Mycoses Study Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Consensus Criteria

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledg

Adherence to study drug in a stroke prevention trial ?\u3e.

OBJECTIVE: Standards for reporting and analyzing adherence to medical therapy have recently improved due to international consensus efforts. If applied to clinical trial research in patients with stroke, these improvements have the potential to identify when in the sequence of trial operations participants are at risk for non-adherence and opportunities to safeguard adherence. METHODS: We analyzed three phases of adherence according to the European Society for Patient Adherence, COMpliance, and Persistence (ESPACOMP) Medication Adherence Reporting Guideline (EMERGE) taxonomy in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial: initiation (did patient start drug), implementation (did patient take a drug holiday, defined as temporary cessation lasting ≥14 days), and persistence (did patient prematurely and permanently discontinue drug). IRIS was a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial testing pioglitazone to prevent stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Adherence was classified by self-report. Researchers used coaching algorithms to seek adherence recovery if participants went off drug. RESULTS: During 2005-2013, 3876 participants were enrolled from 179 sites in seven countries and followed for a mean of 4.8 years. Less than 1% of participants in each group did not initiate study drug. 20% of patients assigned to pioglitazone and 17% assigned to placebo took at least one drug holiday. 36% and 30%, respectively, discontinued the study drug prematurely with or without a prior holiday. The risk for stopping the study drug (temporarily or permanently) in the first year after randomization was twice the risk in each of the subsequent four years. This was true both for patients assigned to active therapy and placebo. More participants assigned to pioglitazone, compared to placebo, took a drug holiday or permanently stopped study drug, but the difference in rates of discontinuation was only evident in year one. In years two through five, rates of discontinuation were similar in the two treatment groups. The difference in rates during year one was the result of adverse effects related to the active study drug, pioglitazone. During the remainder of the trial, the attribution of discontinuations to adverse effects potentially related to pioglitazone was reduced but still higher in those assigned to active drug. Other reasons for discontinuation were similar between treatment groups and were largely unrelated to pharmacodynamic effects of the study drug. Rates of discontinuation varied widely among research sites. CONCLUSION: Patients in a drug trial for stroke prevention are at greatest risk for premature drug discontinuation early after randomization. Reasons for discontinuation change over time. Variable discontinuation rates among sites suggests that adherence can be improved by using best practices from high-performing sites

Distance from Home to Research Center: A Barrier to In-Person Visits but Not Treatment Adherence in a Stroke Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical trials often seek to enroll patients from both urban and rural areas to safeguard the generalizability of results. However, maintaining contact with patients who live away from a recruitment site, including rural areas, can be challenging. In this research we examine the effect of distance between patient and study centers on treatment adherence and retention. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 2,466 participants in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial who were enrolled from research sites in the United States. Driving distance between the zipcodes of patient\u27s reported place of residence and the study center was calculated. Outcome measures were loss to follow-up, completion of annual in-person visits, adherence to preventive therapy, and adherence to study drug in the first 3 years of participation. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Distance from residence to research center was not associated with loss to follow-up, adherence to study drug, or adherence to preventive therapy (p \u3e 0.05 for each). However, patients who lived farther from the research center (\u3e120 miles), compared to patients who lived closer (\u3c60 \u3emiles), were less likely to complete the second annual in-person visit (62 vs. 81%; adjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31-0.75) and third visit (53 vs. 75%; adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Distance between patient and study center was an independent predictor of missed in-person visits but not with adherence to study treatment or preventive care

Achievement of Guideline-Recommended Weight Loss Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Obesity.

Background and Purpose- The proportion of patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and obesity who successfully achieve goals for weight reduction recommended by major professional organizations is unknown. Methods- We examined the experience of participants in the placebo group of the IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke) with a body mass index ≥30 kg/