Key design elements of successful acute ischemic stroke treatment trials

Purpose: We review key design elements of positive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment and summarize their main characteristics. Method: We searched Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane databases for positive RCTs in AIS treatment. Trials were included if (1) they had a randomized controlled design, with (at least partial) blinding for endpoints, (2) they tested against placebo (or on top of standard therapy in a superiority design) or against approved therapy; (3) the protocol was registered and/or published before trial termination and unblinding (if required at study commencement); (4) the primary endpoint was positive in the intention to treat analysis; and (5) the study findings led to approval of the investigational product and/or high ranked recommendations. A topical approach was used, therefore the findings were summarized as a narrative review. Findings: Seventeen positive RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of trials included less than 1000 patients (n=15), had highly selective inclusion criteria (n=16), used the modified Rankin score as a primary endpoint (n=15) and had a frequentist design (n=16). Trials tended to be national (n=12), investigator-initiated and performed with public funding (n=11).Discussion: Smaller but selective trials are useful to identify efficacy in a particular subgroup of stroke patients. It may also be of advantage to limit the number of participating countries and centers to avoid heterogeneity in stroke management and bureaucratic burden.Conclusion: The key characteristics of positive RCTs in AIS treatment described here may assist in the design of further trials investigating a single intervention with a potentially high effect size

Genetic spectrum of hereditary neuropathies with onset in the first year of life

Early onset hereditary motor and sensory neuropathies are rare disorders encompassing congenital hypomyelinating neuropathy with disease onset in the direct post-natal period and Dejerine–Sottas neuropathy starting in infancy. The clinical spectrum, however, reaches beyond the boundaries of these two historically defined disease entities. De novo dominant mutations in PMP22, MPZ and EGR2 are known to be a typical cause of very early onset hereditary neuropathies. In addition, mutations in several other dominant and recessive genes for Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease may lead to similar phenotypes. To estimate mutation frequencies and to gain detailed insights into the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of early onset hereditary neuropathies, we selected a heterogeneous cohort of 77 unrelated patients who presented with symptoms of peripheral neuropathy within the first year of life. The majority of these patients were isolated in their family. We performed systematic mutation screening by means of direct sequencing of the coding regions of 11 genes: MFN2, PMP22, MPZ, EGR2, GDAP1, NEFL, FGD4, MTMR2, PRX, SBF2 and SH3TC2. In addition, screening for the Charcot–Marie–Tooth type 1A duplication on chromosome 17p11.2-12 was performed. In 35 patients (45%), mutations were identified. Mutations in MPZ, PMP22 and EGR2 were found most frequently in patients presenting with early hypotonia and breathing difficulties. The recessive genes FGD4, PRX, MTMR2, SBF2, SH3TC2 and GDAP1 were mutated in patients presenting with early foot deformities and variable delay in motor milestones after an uneventful neonatal period. Several patients displaying congenital foot deformities but an otherwise normal early development carried the Charcot–Marie–Tooth type 1A duplication. This study clearly illustrates the genetic heterogeneity underlying hereditary neuropathies with infantile onset

Recurrent Ischemic Stroke and Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Suffered an Acute Stroke While on Treatment With Nonvitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants: The RENO-EXTEND Study

Background: In patients with atrial fibrillation who suffered an ischemic stroke while on treatment with nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, rates and determinants of recurrent ischemic events and major bleedings remain uncertain. Methods: This prospective multicenter observational study aimed to estimate the rates of ischemic and bleeding events and their determinants in the follow-up of consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation who suffered an acute cerebrovascular ischemic event while on nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatment. Afterwards, we compared the estimated risks of ischemic and bleeding events between the patients in whom anticoagulant therapy was changed to those who continued the original treatment. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 15.0±10.9 months, 192 out of 1240 patients (15.5%) had 207 ischemic or bleeding events corresponding to an annual rate of 13.4%. Among the events, 111 were ischemic strokes, 15 systemic embolisms, 24 intracranial bleedings, and 57 major extracranial bleedings. Predictive factors of recurrent ischemic events (strokes and systemic embolisms) included CHA2DS2-VASc score after the index event (odds ratio [OR], 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0–1.3] for each point increase; P=0.05) and hypertension (OR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.0–5.1]; P=0.04). Predictive factors of bleeding events (intracranial and major extracranial bleedings) included age (OR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0–1.2] for each year increase; P=0.002), history of major bleeding (OR, 6.9 [95% CI, 3.4–14.2]; P=0.0001) and the concomitant administration of an antiplatelet agent (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.4–5.5]; P=0.003). Rates of ischemic and bleeding events were no different in patients who changed or not changed the original nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants treatment (OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.8–1.7]). Conclusions: Patients suffering a stroke despite being on nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy are at high risk of recurrent ischemic stroke and bleeding. In these patients, further research is needed to improve secondary prevention by investigating the mechanisms of recurrent ischemic stroke and bleeding

Intravenous alteplase for stroke with unknown time of onset guided by advanced imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: Patients who have had a stroke with unknown time of onset have been previously excluded from thrombolysis. We aimed to establish whether intravenous alteplase is safe and effective in such patients when salvageable tissue has been identified with imaging biomarkers. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data for trials published before Sept 21, 2020. Randomised trials of intravenous alteplase versus standard of care or placebo in adults with stroke with unknown time of onset with perfusion-diffusion MRI, perfusion CT, or MRI with diffusion weighted imaging-fluid attenuated inversion recovery (DWI-FLAIR) mismatch were eligible. The primary outcome was favourable functional outcome (score of 0–1 on the modified Rankin Scale [mRS]) at 90 days indicating no disability using an unconditional mixed-effect logistic-regression model fitted to estimate the treatment effect. Secondary outcomes were mRS shift towards a better functional outcome and independent outcome (mRS 0–2) at 90 days. Safety outcomes included death, severe disability or death (mRS score 4–6), and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020166903. Findings: Of 249 identified abstracts, four trials met our eligibility criteria for inclusion: WAKE-UP, EXTEND, THAWS, and ECASS-4. The four trials provided individual patient data for 843 individuals, of whom 429 (51%) were assigned to alteplase and 414 (49%) to placebo or standard care. A favourable outcome occurred in 199 (47%) of 420 patients with alteplase and in 160 (39%) of 409 patients among controls (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·49 [95% CI 1·10–2·03]; p=0·011), with low heterogeneity across studies (I2=27%). Alteplase was associated with a significant shift towards better functional outcome (adjusted common OR 1·38 [95% CI 1·05–1·80]; p=0·019), and a higher odds of independent outcome (adjusted OR 1·50 [1·06–2·12]; p=0·022). In the alteplase group, 90 (21%) patients were severely disabled or died (mRS score 4–6), compared with 102 (25%) patients in the control group (adjusted OR 0·76 [0·52–1·11]; p=0·15). 27 (6%) patients died in the alteplase group and 14 (3%) patients died among controls (adjusted OR 2·06 [1·03–4·09]; p=0·040). The prevalence of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in the alteplase group than among controls (11 [3%] vs two [<1%], adjusted OR 5·58 [1·22–25·50]; p=0·024). Interpretation: In patients who have had a stroke with unknown time of onset with a DWI-FLAIR or perfusion mismatch, intravenous alteplase resulted in better functional outcome at 90 days than placebo or standard care. A net benefit was observed for all functional outcomes despite an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. Although there were more deaths with alteplase than placebo, there were fewer cases of severe disability or death. Funding: None

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

The risk of stroke recurrence in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction

Abstract Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and congestive heart failure often coexist due to their shared risk factors leading to potential worse outcome, particularly cerebrovascular events. The aims of this study were to calculate the rates of ischemic and severe bleeding events in ischemic stroke patients having both AF and reduced ejection fraction (rEF) (⩽40%), compared to ischemic stroke patients with AF but without rEF. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis that drew data from prospective studies. The primary outcome was the composite of either ischemic (stroke or systemic embolism), or hemorrhagic events (symptomatic intracranial bleeding and severe extracranial bleeding). Results: The cohort for this analysis comprised 3477 patients with ischemic stroke and AF, of which, 643 (18.3%) had also rEF. After a mean follow-up of 7.5 ± 9.1 months, 375 (10.8%) patients had 382 recorded outcome events, for an annual rate of 18.0%. While the number of primary outcome events in patients with rEF was 86 (13.4%), compared to 289 (10.2%) for the patients without rEF; on multivariable analysis rEF was not associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.84–1.88). At the end of follow-up, 321 (49.9%) patients with rEF were deceased or disabled (mRS ⩾3), compared with 1145 (40.4%) of those without rEF; on multivariable analysis, rEF was correlated with mortality or disability (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03–1.77). Conclusions: In patients with ischemic stroke and AF, the presence of rEF was not associated with the composite outcome of ischemic or hemorrhagic events over short-term follow-up but was associated with increased mortality or disability

Primary stroke prevention worldwide : translating evidence into action

Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis ?erimagi? (Poliklinika Glavi?, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo Ant?nio, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Cz?onkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), Jo?o Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gon?alves (Hospital S?o Jos? do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurj?ns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, ?zmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Micha? Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Migl?ne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis Čerimagić (Poliklinika Glavić, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Członkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), João Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gonçalves (Hospital São José do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurjāns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Michał Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Miglāne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: VLF declares that the PreventS web app and Stroke Riskometer app are owned and copyrighted by Auckland University of Technology; has received grants from the Brain Research New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (16/STH/36), Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; APP1182071), and World Stroke Organization (WSO); is an executive committee member of WSO, honorary medical director of Stroke Central New Zealand, and CEO of New Zealand Stroke Education charitable Trust. AGT declares funding from NHMRC (GNT1042600, GNT1122455, GNT1171966, GNT1143155, and GNT1182017), Stroke Foundation Australia (SG1807), and Heart Foundation Australia (VG102282); and board membership of the Stroke Foundation (Australia). SLG is funded by the National Health Foundation of Australia (Future Leader Fellowship 102061) and NHMRC (GNT1182071, GNT1143155, and GNT1128373). RM is supported by the Implementation Research Network in Stroke Care Quality of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (project CA18118) and by the IRIS-TEPUS project from the inter-excellence inter-cost programme of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project LTC20051). BN declares receiving fees for data management committee work for SOCRATES and THALES trials for AstraZeneca and fees for data management committee work for NAVIGATE-ESUS trial from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseStroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Valsalva maneuver unveils central baroreflex dysfunction with altered blood pressure control in persons with a history of mild traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of mild TBI (post-mTBI-patients) have an unexplained increase in long-term mortality which might be related to central autonomic dysregulation (CAD). We investigated whether standardized baroreflex-loading, induced by a Valsalva maneuver (VM), unveils CAD in otherwise healthy post-mTBI-patients. METHODS: In 29 healthy persons (31.3 ± 12.2 years; 9 women) and 25 post-mTBI-patients (35.0 ± 13.2 years, 7 women, 4–98 months post-injury), we monitored respiration (RESP), RR-intervals (RRI) and systolic blood pressure (BP) at rest and during three VMs. At rest, we calculated parameters of total autonomic modulation [RRI-coefficient-of-variation (CV), RRI-standard-deviation (RRI-SD), RRI-total-powers], of sympathetic [RRI-low-frequency-powers (LF), BP-LF-powers] and parasympathetic modulation [square-root-of-mean-squared-differences-of-successive-RRIs (RMSSD), RRI-high-frequency-powers (HF)], the index of sympatho-vagal balance (RRI LF/HF-ratios), and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS). We calculated Valsalva-ratios (VR) and times from lowest to highest RRIs after strain (VR-time) as indices of parasympathetic activation, intervals from highest systolic BP-values after strain-release to the time when systolic BP had fallen by 90 % of the differences between peak-phase-IV-BP and baseline-BP (90 %-BP-normalization-times), and velocities of BP-normalization (90 %-BP-normalization-velocities) as indices of sympathetic withdrawal. We compared patient- and control-parameters before and during VM (Mann-Whitney-U-tests or t-tests; significance: P < 0.05). RESULTS: At rest, RRI-CVs, RRI-SDs, RRI-total-powers, RRI-LF-powers, BP-LF-powers, RRI-RMSSDs, RRI-HF-powers, and BRS were lower in patients than controls. During VMs, 90 %-BP-normalization-times were longer, and 90 %-BP-normalization-velocities were lower in patients than controls (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced autonomic modulation at rest and delayed BP-decrease after VM-induced baroreflex-loading indicate subtle CAD with altered baroreflex adjustment to challenge. More severe autonomic challenge might trigger more prominent cardiovascular dysregulation and thus contribute to increased mortality risk in post-mTBI-patients

Stroke coach: a pilot study of a personal digital coaching program for patients after ischemic stroke

Despite recent advances in acute stroke care, the risk of recurrent stroke remains high. On behalf of the Belgian Stroke Council (BSC), a nurse-led self-management program was developed, using a personal coach and digital platform with the aim of improving cardiovascular risk factor control in patients after ischemic stroke. The program was implemented in four Belgian hospitals. The stroke coach provided one educational session during hospitalization. After discharge, the patient received tips and tricks concerning a healthy lifestyle through the customized platform. The stroke coach set up video appointments through the platform at regular intervals. Primary endpoint of our study was the change in SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation: High and Low cardiovascular Risk Charts) risk at baseline and 6 months compared with a historical control group who received standard care. A total of 147 patients were included for a follow-up period of 6 months. The mean SCORE in the intervention group showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.2 (p < 0.001) at 6 months. However, comparison between control and intervention groups was non-significant (p = 0.55). Secondary endpoints are promising with a medication adherence of 96%. Reported quality of life also improved (p < 0.001). No significant improvement in the modified Rankin scale (mRS) was observed (p = 0.720). Five percent of patients suffered a recurrent stroke. Our project consisting of a coached lifestyle intervention and digital platform shows promise in improving stroke recurrence rates, therapeutic adherence and quality of life in a Belgian healthcare setting.status: publishe