Search

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis is a standard treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The efficacy and safety of combining intravenous thrombolysis with argatroban (an anticoagulant agent) or eptifibatide (an antiplatelet agent) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, three-group, adaptive, single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial at 57 sites in the United States. Patients with acute ischemic stroke who had received intravenous thrombolysis within 3 hours after symptom onset were assigned to receive intravenous argatroban, eptifibatide, or placebo within 75 minutes after the initiation of thrombolysis. The primary efficacy outcome, the utility-weighted 90-day modified Rankin scale score (range, 0 to 10, with higher scores reflecting better outcomes), was assessed by means of centralized adjudication. The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 514 patients were assigned to receive argatroban (59 patients), eptifibatide (227 patients), or placebo (228 patients). All the patients received intravenous thrombolysis (70% received alteplase, and 30% received tenecteplase), and 225 patients (44%) underwent endovascular thrombectomy. At 90 days, the mean (±SD) utility-weighted modified Rankin scale scores were 5.2±3.7 with argatroban, 6.3±3.2 with eptifibatide, and 6.8±3.0 with placebo. The posterior probability that argatroban was better than placebo was 0.002 (posterior mean difference in utility-weighted modified Rankin scale score, -1.51±0.51) and that eptifibatide was better than placebo was 0.041 (posterior mean difference, -0.50±0.29). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was similar in the three groups (4% with argatroban, 3% with eptifibatide, and 2% with placebo). Mortality at 90 days was higher in the argatroban group (24%) and the eptifibatide group (12%) than in the placebo group (8°/o). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis within 3 hours after symptom onset, adjunctive treatment with intravenous argatroban or eptifibatide did not reduce poststroke disability and was associated with increased mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Discusses the difficulty of early treatment for ischemic stroke. Reason for the impracticality of early treatment for ischemic stroke; Description of acute cerebral infarction; Variables limiting early stroke treatment in humans.

Background: Cardiac arrest is a common and devastating emergency of both the heart and brain. More than 380,000 patients suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest annually in the USA. Induced cooling of comatose patients markedly improved neurological and functional outcomes in pivotal randomized clinical trials, but the optimal duration of therapeutic hypothermia has not yet been established., Methods: This study is a multi-center randomized, response-adaptive, duration (dose) finding, comparative effectiveness clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. We investigate two populations of adult comatose survivors of cardiac arrest to ascertain the shortest duration of cooling that provides the maximum treatment effect. The design is based on a statistical model of response as defined by the primary endpoint, a weighted 90-day mRS (modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurologic disability), across the treatment arms. Subjects will initially be equally randomized between 12, 24, and 48 h of therapeutic cooling. After the first 200 subjects have been randomized, additional treatment arms between 12 and 48 h will be opened and patients will be allocated, within each initial cardiac rhythm type (shockable or non-shockable), by response adaptive randomization. As the trial continues, shorter and longer duration arms may be opened. A maximum sample size of 1800 subjects is proposed. Secondary objectives are to characterize: the overall safety and adverse events associated with duration of cooling, the effect on neuropsychological outcomes, and the effect on patient-reported quality of life measures., Discussion: In vitro and in vivo studies have shown the neuroprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest. We hypothesize that longer durations of cooling may improve either the proportion of patients that attain a good neurological recovery or may result in better recovery among the proportion already categorized as having a good outcome. If the treatment effect of cooling is increasing across duration, for at least some set of durations, then this provides evidence of the efficacy of cooling itself versus normothermia, even in the absence of a normothermia control arm, confirming previous RCTs for OHCA survivors of shockable rhythms and provides the first prospective controlled evidence of efficacy in those without initial shockable rhythms., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04217551. Registered on 30 December 2019., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Cardiac arrest is a common and devastating emergency of both the heart and brain. More than 380,000 patients suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest annually in the United States. Induced cooling of comatose patients markedly improved neurological and functional outcomes in pivotal randomized clinical trials, but the optimal duration of therapeutic hypothermia has not yet been established., Methods: This study is a multi-center randomized, response-adaptive, duration (dose) finding, comparative effectiveness clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. We investigate two populations of adult comatose survivors of cardiac arrest to ascertain the shortest duration of cooling that provides the maximum treatment effect. The design is based on a statistical model of response as defined by the primary endpoint, a weighted 90-day mRS (modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurologic disability), across the treatment arms. Subjects will initially be equally randomized between 12, 24, and 48 hours of therapeutic cooling. After the first 200 subjects have been randomized, additional treatment arms between 12 and 48 hours will be opened and patients will be allocated, within each initial cardiac rhythm type (shockable or non-shockable), by response adaptive randomization. As the trial continues, shorter and longer duration arms may be opened. A maximum sample size of 1800 subjects is proposed. Secondary objectives are to characterize: the overall safety and adverse events associated with duration of cooling, the effect on neuropsychological outcomes, and the effect on patient reported quality of life measures., Discussion: In-vitro and in-vivo studies have shown the neuroprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest. We hypothesize that longer durations of cooling may improve either the proportion of patients that attain a good neurological recovery or may result in better recovery among the proportion already categorized as having a good outcome. If the treatment effect of cooling is increasing across duration, for at least some set of durations, then this provides evidence of the efficacy of cooling itself versus normothermia, even in the absence of a normothermia control arm, confirming previous RCTs for OHCA survivors of shockable rhythms and provides the first prospective controlled evidence of efficacy in those without initial shockable rhythms., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04217551, 2019-12-30)., Competing Interests: Competing interests {28} B Abella: Funding: NIH, DOD, Neuroptics, Becton Dickinson; equity: VOC Health, Neuroptics, MDAlly, volunteer: AHA T Aufderheide: Unrestricted research grant from ZOLL Medical, Inc. S Berry: Part owner of Berry Consultants K Broglio: Owns stock in AstraZeneca NIH (K23HL157610) and Hyper ne (SAFE MRI study) S Cho: NIH (K23HL157610) and Hyper ne (SAFE MRI study) R Lewis: I am the Senior Medical Scientist at Berry Consultants, LLC, a statistical consulting firm that specializes in the design, conduct, and analysis of Bayesian adaptive clinical trials. Berry Consultants contributed to the statistical design of the trial reported here. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Multiple randomized, controlled clinical trials have yielded discordant results regarding the efficacy of convalescent plasma in outpatients, with some showing an approximately 2-fold reduction in risk and others showing no effect. We quantified binding and neutralizing antibody levels in 492 of the 511 participants from the Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO) of a single unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) versus saline infusion. In a subset of 70 participants, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained to define the evolution of B and T cell responses through day 30. Binding and neutralizing antibody responses were approximately 2-fold higher 1 hour after infusion in recipients of CCP compared with saline plus multivitamin, but levels achieved by the native immune system by day 15 were almost 10-fold higher than those seen immediately after CCP administration. Infusion of CCP did not block generation of the host antibody response or skew B or T cell phenotype or maturation. Activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were associated with more severe disease outcome. These data show that CCP leads to a measurable boost in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but that the boost is modest and may not be sufficient to alter disease course.

Studies that investigate the performance of prognostic and predictive biomarkers are commonplace in medicine. Evaluating the performance of biomarkers is challenging in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other conditions when both the time factor (i.e. time from injury to biomarker measurement) and different levels or doses of treatments are in play. Such factors need to be accounted for when assessing the biomarker's performance in relation to a clinical outcome. The Hyperbaric Oxygen in Brain Injury Treatment (HOBIT) trial, a phase II randomized control clinical trial seeks to determine the dose of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating severe TBI that has the highest likelihood of demonstrating efficacy in a phase III trial. Hyperbaric Oxygen in Brain Injury Treatment will study up to 200 participants with severe TBI. This paper discusses the statistical approaches to assess the prognostic and predictive performance of the biomarkers studied in this trial, where prognosis refers to the association between a biomarker and the clinical outcome while the predictiveness refers to the ability of the biomarker to identify patient subgroups that benefit from therapy. Analyses based on initial biomarker levels accounting for different levels of HBOT and other baseline clinical characteristics, and analyses of longitudinal changes in biomarker levels are discussed from a statistical point of view. Methods for combining biomarkers that are of complementary nature are also considered and the relevant algorithms are illustrated in detail along with an extensive simulation study that assesses the performance of the statistical methods. Even though the discussed approaches are motivated by the HOBIT trial, their applications are broader. They can be applied in studies assessing the predictiveness and prognostic ability of biomarkers in relation to a well-defined therapeutic intervention and clinical outcome., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes invasive monitoring to prevent secondary brain injuries. Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor is the main measurement used to that intent but cerebral hypoxia can occur despite normal ICP. This study will assess whether the addition of a brain tissue oxygenation (PbtO 2 ) monitor prevents more secondary injuries that will translate into improved functional outcome., Methods and Analysis: Multicentre, randomised, blinded-endpoint comparative effectiveness study enrolling 1094 patients with severe TBI monitored with both ICP and PbtO 2 . Patients will be randomised to medical management guided by ICP alone (treating team blinded to PbtO 2 values) or both ICP and PbtO 2 . Management is protocolised according to international guidelines in a tiered approach fashion to maintain ICP <22 mm Hg and PbtO 2 >20 mm Hg. ICP and PbtO 2 will be continuously recorded for a minimum of 5 days. The primary outcome measure is the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended performed at 180 (±30) days by a blinded central examiner. Favourable outcome is defined according to a sliding dichotomy where the definition of favourable outcome varies according to baseline severity. Severity will be defined according to the probability of poor outcome predicted by the IMPACT core model. A large battery of secondary outcomes including granular neuropsychological and quality of life measures will be performed., Ethics and Dissemination: This has been approved by Advarra Ethics Committee (Pro00030585). Results will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03754114)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Early administration of convalescent plasma obtained from blood donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with Covid-19., Methods: In this randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial, we assigned patients who were being treated in an emergency department for Covid-19 symptoms to receive either one unit of convalescent plasma with a high titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or placebo. All the patients were either 50 years of age or older or had one or more risk factors for disease progression. In addition, all the patients presented to the emergency department within 7 days after symptom onset and were in stable condition for outpatient management. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the worst severity of illness on an 8-category ordinal scale, hospital-free days within 30 days after randomization, and death from any cause., Results: A total of 511 patients were enrolled in the trial (257 in the convalescent-plasma group and 254 in the placebo group). The median age of the patients was 54 years; the median symptom duration was 4 days. In the donor plasma samples, the median titer of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was 1:641. Disease progression occurred in 77 patients (30.0%) in the convalescent-plasma group and in 81 patients (31.9%) in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, -6.0 to 9.8; posterior probability of superiority of convalescent plasma, 0.68). Five patients in the plasma group and 1 patient in the placebo group died. Outcomes regarding worst illness severity and hospital-free days were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: The administration of Covid-19 convalescent plasma to high-risk outpatients within 1 week after the onset of symptoms of Covid-19 did not prevent disease progression. (SIREN-C3PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04355767.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Early treatment of moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) with progesterone does not improve clinical outcomes. This is in contrast with findings from pre-clinical studies of progesterone in TBI. To understand the reasons for the negative clinical trial, we investigated whether progesterone treatment has the desired biological effect of decreasing brain cell death. We quantified brain cell death using serum levels of biomarkers of glial and neuronal cell death (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase-L1 [UCH-L1], S100 calcium-binding protein B [S100B], and Alpha II Spectrin Breakdown Product 150 [SBDP]) in the Biomarkers of Injury and Outcome-Progesterone for Traumatic Brain Injury, Experimental Clinical Treatment (BIO-ProTECT) study. Serum levels of GFAP, UCHL1, S100B, and SBDP were measured at baseline (≤4 h post-injury and before administration of study drug) and at 24 and 48 h post-injury. Serum progesterone levels were measured at 24 and 48 h post-injury. The primary outcome of ProTECT was based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended assessed at 6 months post-randomization. We found that at baseline, there were no differences in biomarker levels between subjects randomized to progesterone treatment and those randomized to placebo ( p  > 0.10). Similarly, at 24 and 48 h post-injury, there were no differences in biomarker levels in the progesterone versus placebo groups ( p  > 0.15). There was no statistically significant correlation between serum progesterone concentrations and biomarker values obtained at 24 and 48 h. When examined as a continuous variable, baseline biomarker levels did not modify the association between progesterone treatment and neurological outcome ( p of interaction term >0.39 for all biomarkers). We conclude that progesterone treatment does not decrease levels of biomarkers of glial and neuronal cell death during the first 48 h post-injury.

Background and Purpose: Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet drug that is metabolized to its active form by the CYP2C19 enzyme. The CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) found a significant interaction between loss-of-function allele status for the CYP2C19 gene and the effect of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel on the rate of early recurrent stroke following acute transient ischemic attack/minor stroke. The POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke Trial), similar in design to CHANCE but performed largely in North America and Europe, demonstrated a reduction in early recurrent stroke with dual antiplatelet therapy compared with aspirin alone. This substudy was done to evaluate a potential interaction between loss-of-function CYP2C19 alleles and outcome by treatment group in POINT., Methods: Of the 269 sites in 10 countries that enrolled patients in POINT, 134 sites participated in this substudy. DNA samples were genotyped for CYP2C19 *2, *3, and *17 alleles and classified as being carriers or noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles. Major ischemia consisted of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemic vascular death., Results: Nine hundred thirty-two patients provided analyzable DNA. The rates of major ischemia were 6.7% for the aspirin group versus 2.3% for the dual antiplatelet therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.09-1.21]; P =0.09) among carriers of loss-of-function allele. The rates of major ischemia were 5.6% for the aspirin group versus 3.7% for the dual antiplatelet therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.32-1.34]; P =0.25) among noncarriers. There was no significant interaction by genotype for major ischemia ( P =0.36) or stroke ( P =0.33)., Conclusions: This substudy of POINT found no significant interaction with CYP2C19 loss-of-function carrier status and outcome by treatment group. Failure to confirm the findings from the CHANCE trial may be because the loss-of-function alleles tested are not clinically important in this context or because the 2 trials had differences in racial/ethnic composition. Additionally, differences between the 2 trials might be due to chance as our statistical power was limited to 50%. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Background: Benzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups., Methods: In this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075., Findings: Between Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group., Interpretation: Children, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus., Funding: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The choice of drugs for patients with status epilepticus that is refractory to treatment with benzodiazepines has not been thoroughly studied., Methods: In a randomized, blinded, adaptive trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of three intravenous anticonvulsive agents - levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate - in children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus that was unresponsive to treatment with benzodiazepines. The primary outcome was absence of clinically evident seizures and improvement in the level of consciousness by 60 minutes after the start of drug infusion, without additional anticonvulsant medication. The posterior probabilities that each drug was the most or least effective were calculated. Safety outcomes included life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, seizure recurrence, and death., Results: A total of 384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive levetiracetam (145 patients), fosphenytoin (118), or valproate (121). Reenrollment of patients with a second episode of status epilepticus accounted for 16 additional instances of randomization. In accordance with a prespecified stopping rule for futility of finding one drug to be superior or inferior, a planned interim analysis led to the trial being stopped. Of the enrolled patients, 10% were determined to have had psychogenic seizures. The primary outcome of cessation of status epilepticus and improvement in the level of consciousness at 60 minutes occurred in 68 patients assigned to levetiracetam (47%; 95% credible interval, 39 to 55), 53 patients assigned to fosphenytoin (45%; 95% credible interval, 36 to 54), and 56 patients assigned to valproate (46%; 95% credible interval, 38 to 55). The posterior probability that each drug was the most effective was 0.41, 0.24, and 0.35, respectively. Numerically more episodes of hypotension and intubation occurred in the fosphenytoin group and more deaths occurred in the levetiracetam group than in the other groups, but these differences were not significant., Conclusions: In the context of benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive status epilepticus, the anticonvulsant drugs levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate each led to seizure cessation and improved alertness by 60 minutes in approximately half the patients, and the three drugs were associated with similar incidences of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01960075.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Importance: Hyperglycemia during acute ischemic stroke is common and is associated with worse outcomes. The efficacy of intensive treatment of hyperglycemia in this setting remains unknown., Objectives: To determine the efficacy of intensive treatment of hyperglycemia during acute ischemic stroke., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) randomized clinical trial included adult patients with hyperglycemia (glucose concentration of >110 mg/dL if had diabetes or ≥150 mg/dL if did not have diabetes) and acute ischemic stroke who were enrolled within 12 hours from stroke onset at 63 US sites between April 2012 and August 2018; follow-up ended in November 2018. The trial included 1151 patients who met eligibility criteria., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive continuous intravenous insulin using a computerized decision support tool (target blood glucose concentration of 80-130 mg/dL [4.4-7.2 mmol/L]; intensive treatment group: n = 581) or insulin on a sliding scale that was administered subcutaneously (target blood glucose concentration of 80-179 mg/dL [4.4-9.9 mmol/L]; standard treatment group: n = 570) for up to 72 hours., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with a favorable outcome based on the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score (a global stroke disability scale ranging from 0 [no symptoms or completely recovered] to 6 [death]) that was adjusted for baseline stroke severity., Results: Among 1151 patients who were randomized (mean age, 66 years [SD, 13.1 years]; 529 [46%] women, 920 [80%] with diabetes), 1118 (97%) completed the trial. Enrollment was stopped for futility based on prespecified interim analysis criteria. During treatment, the mean blood glucose level was 118 mg/dL (6.6 mmol/L) in the intensive treatment group and 179 mg/dL (9.9 mmol/L) in the standard treatment group. A favorable outcome occurred in 119 of 581 patients (20.5%) in the intensive treatment group and in 123 of 570 patients (21.6%) in the standard treatment group (adjusted relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.08], P = .55; unadjusted risk difference, -0.83% [95% CI, -5.72% to 4.06%]). Treatment was stopped early for hypoglycemia or other adverse events in 65 of 581 patients (11.2%) in the intensive treatment group and in 18 of 570 patients (3.2%) in the standard treatment group. Severe hypoglycemia occurred only among patients in the intensive treatment group (15/581 [2.6%]; risk difference, 2.58% [95% CI, 1.29% to 3.87%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke and hyperglycemia, treatment with intensive vs standard glucose control for up to 72 hours did not result in a significant difference in favorable functional outcome at 90 days. These findings do not support using intensive glucose control in this setting., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01369069.

Background and Purpose- Effective stroke prevention depends on accurate stroke risk prediction. We determined the discriminative ability of NfL (neurofilament light chain) levels for distinguishing between adults with diabetes mellitus who develop incident stroke and those who remain stroke free during a 7-year follow-up period. Methods- We performed a case-control study of participants selected from the previously completed ACCORD trial (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes). Cases were all ACCORD subjects who were stroke free at enrollment and developed incident stroke during follow-up (n=113). Control subjects (n=250) were randomly selected ACCORD subjects who had no stroke events either before or after randomization. NfL was measured in baseline samples using Single Molecule Array technology (Quanterix). Results- Baseline NfL levels were higher in stroke subjects, compared to controls, after adjusting for age, race, blood pressure, weight, and the Framingham Stroke Risk Score. Relative to the subjects in the lowest quintile of NfL levels, the hazard ratios of incident stroke for subjects in the second to fifth quintiles were 3.91 (1.45-10.53), 4.05 (1.52-10.79), 5.63 (2.16-14.66), and 9.75 (3.84-27.71), respectively, after adjusting for race and Framingham Stroke Risk Score. Incorporating NfL levels into a predictive score that already included race and Framingham Stroke Risk Score increased the score's C statistic from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.77) to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73-0.83), P<0.001. Older age, nonwhite race, higher systolic blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate <60, and higher hemoglobin A1C were independent predictors of serum NfL in this cohort but diastolic blood pressure, durations of hypertension or diabetes mellitus, and lipid levels were not. In total, cardiovascular disease risk factors explained 19.2% of the variability in baseline NfL levels. Conclusions- Serum NfL levels predict incident stroke and add considerably to the discriminatory power of the Framingham Stroke Risk Score in a cohort of middle-aged and older adults with diabetes mellitus.

Importance: Results show the short-term risk of hemorrhage in treating patients with acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone., Objective: To characterize the frequency and kinds of major hemorrhages in the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the POINT randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and Australasia included patients with high-risk TIA or minor AIS who were randomized within 12 hours of symptom onset and followed up for 90 days. The total enrollment, which occurred from May 28, 2010, through December 17, 2017, was 4881 and constituted the intention-to-treat group; 4819 (98.7%) were included in the as-treated analysis group. The primary safety analyses were as-treated, classifying patients based on study drug actually received. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed as secondary analyses. Data were analyzed in April 2018., Interventions: Patients were assigned to receive clopidogrel (600 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 75 mg daily for days 2-90) or placebo; all patients also received open-label aspirin, 50 to 325 mg/d., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was all major hemorrhages. Other safety outcomes included minor hemorrhages., Results: A total of 269 sites worldwide randomized 4881 patients (median age, 65.0 years [interquartile range, 55-74 years]; 2195 women [45.0%]); the primary results have been published previously. In the as-treated analyses, major hemorrhage occurred in 21 patients (0.9%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and 6 (0.2%) in the aspirin alone group (hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.44-8.85; P = .003; number needed to harm, 159). There were 4 fatal hemorrhages (0.1%; 3 in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group and 1 in the aspirin alone group); 3 of the 4 were intracranial. There were 7 intracranial hemorrhages (0.1%); 5 were in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group and 2 in the aspirin plus placebo group. The most common location of major hemorrhages was in the gastrointestinal tract., Conclusions and Relevance: The risk for major hemorrhages in patients receiving either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone after TIA or minor AIS was low. Nevertheless, treatment with clopidogrel plus aspirin increased the risk of major hemorrhages over aspirin alone from 0.2% to 0.9%., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00991029.

Background: Combination antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin may reduce the rate of recurrent stroke during the first 3 months after a minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). A trial of combination antiplatelet therapy in a Chinese population has shown a reduction in the risk of recurrent stroke. We tested this combination in an international population., Methods: In a randomized trial, we assigned patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA to receive either clopidogrel at a loading dose of 600 mg on day 1, followed by 75 mg per day, plus aspirin (at a dose of 50 to 325 mg per day) or the same range of doses of aspirin alone. The dose of aspirin in each group was selected by the site investigator. The primary efficacy outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the risk of a composite of major ischemic events, which was defined as ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from an ischemic vascular event, at 90 days., Results: A total of 4881 patients were enrolled at 269 international sites. The trial was halted after 84% of the anticipated number of patients had been enrolled because the data and safety monitoring board had determined that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was associated with both a lower risk of major ischemic events and a higher risk of major hemorrhage than aspirin alone at 90 days. Major ischemic events occurred in 121 of 2432 patients (5.0%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and in 160 of 2449 patients (6.5%) receiving aspirin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.95; P=0.02), with most events occurring during the first week after the initial event. Major hemorrhage occurred in 23 patients (0.9%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and in 10 patients (0.4%) receiving aspirin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.87; P=0.02)., Conclusions: In patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, those who received a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin had a lower risk of major ischemic events but a higher risk of major hemorrhage at 90 days than those who received aspirin alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; POINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00991029 .).

Background: Adaptive designs have been increasingly used in the pharmaceutical and device industries, but adoption within the academic setting has been less widespread - particularly for confirmatory phase trials. We sought to understand perceptions about understanding, acceptability, and scientific validity of adaptive clinical trials (ACTs)., Methods: We used a convergent mixed methods design using survey and mini-focus group data collection procedures to elucidate attitudes and opinions among "trial community" stakeholders regarding understanding, acceptability, efficiency, scientific validity, and speed of discovery with adaptive designs. Data were collected about various aspects of ACTs using self-administered surveys (paper or Web-based) with visual analog scales (VASs) with free text responses and with mini-focus groups of key stakeholders. Participants were recruited as part of an ongoing NIH/FDA-funded research project exploring the incorporation of ACTs into an existing NIH network that focuses on confirmatory phase clinical trials in neurological emergencies. "Trial community" representatives, namely, clinical investigators, biostatisticians, NIH officials, and FDA scientists involved in the planning of four clinical trials, were eligible to participate. In addition, recent and current members of a clinical trial-oriented NIH study section were also eligible., Results: A total of 76 stakeholders completed the survey (out of 91 who were offered it, response rate 84 %). While the VAS attitudinal data showed substantial variability across respondents about acceptability and understanding of ACTs by various constituencies, respondents perceived clinicians to be less likely to understand ACTs and that ACTs probably would increase the efficiency of discovery. Textual and focus group responses emerged into several themes that enhanced understanding of VAS attitudinal data including the following: acceptability of adaptive designs depends on constituency and situation; there is variable understanding of ACTs (limited among clinicians, perceived to be higher at FDA); views about the potential for efficiency depend on the situation and implementation. Participants also frequently mentioned a need for greater education within the academic community. Finally, the empiric, non-quantitative selection of treatments for phase III trials based on limited phase II trials was highlighted as an opportunity for improvement and a potential explanation for the high number of neutral confirmatory trials., Conclusions: These data show considerable variations in attitudes and beliefs about ACTs among trial community representatives. For adaptive trials to be fully considered when appropriate and for the research enterprise to realize the full potential of adaptive designs will likely require extensive experience and trust building within the trial community.

Objectives: The conference objectives included educating patients and advocates about clinical trials, educating the clinical research community about patient perspectives on participating in clinical trial design, and identifying strategies to increase participation in clinical trial design for neurological disorders., Design: Observations were noted during a 1-day conference attended by patients, patient advocates, clinical trial staff, and investigators. The conference offered didactic sessions, small, and large group discussions., Participants: Conference participants were patients, patient advocates, clinical trial staff, students, and investigators interested in engaging patients in clinical trial design for neurological disorders., Measures: Conference participants were asked to consider lessons learned that could increase patient engagement in clinical trial design., Results: We found that there is growing interest in including patients in the design of clinical trials for neurological disorders. Several themes emerged on how to move forward: networking; the multifaceted roles of advocates in research; training and education; creating patient-researcher partnerships; and clinical trials regulation issues., Conclusions: The conference provided a forum for dialogue regarding stakeholder engagement in the design of clinical trials for neurological disorders. This experience provides a template for replication and dissemination of this conference and informs next steps to accelerate the pathway from dialogue to action., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Neuroprotective strategies that limit secondary tissue loss and/or improve functional outcomes have been identified in multiple animal models of ischemic, hemorrhagic, traumatic and nontraumatic cerebral lesions. However, use of these potential interventions in human randomized controlled studies has generally given disappointing results. In this paper, we summarize the current status in terms of neuroprotective strategies, both in the immediate and later stages of acute brain injury in adults. We also review potential new strategies and highlight areas for future research.

Background: Clinical trials frequently spend considerable effort to collect data on patients who were assessed for eligibility but not enrolled. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines' recommended flow diagram for randomized clinical trials reinforces the belief that the collection of screening data is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor. The rationale for collecting screening data includes scientific, trial management, and ethno-socio-cultural reasons., Purpose: We posit that the cost of collecting screening data is not justified, in part due to inability to centrally monitor and verify the screening data in the same manner as other clinical trial data., Methods: To illustrate the effort and site-to-site variability, we analyzed the screening data from a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of patients with transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT))., Results: Data were collected on over 27,000 patients screened across 172 enrolling sites, 95% of whom were not enrolled. Although the rate of return of screen failure logs was high overall (95%), there were a considerable number of logs that were returned with 'no data to report' (23%), often due to administrative reasons rather than no patients screened., Conclusion: In spite of attempts to standardize the collection of screening data, due to differences in site processes, multicenter clinical trials face challenges in collecting those data completely and uniformly. The efforts required to centrally collect high-quality data on an extensive number of screened patients may outweigh the scientific value of the data. Moreover, the lack of a standardized definition of 'screened' and the challenges of collecting meaningful characteristics for patients who have not signed consent limits the ability to compare across studies and to assess generalizability and selection bias as intended., (© The Author(s), 2014.)