Search

BackgroundWeb-based interventions have shown promise for chronic disease management but have not been widely applied to populations with stroke. Existing barriers may inhibit the adoption of web-based interventions among stroke survivors and necessitate the involvement of informal caregivers. However, limited information is available on internet accessibility and usability among stroke survivors and their caregivers. ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate internet access and usage in a cohort of stroke survivors and their caregivers. MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 375 participants (248 stroke survivors and 127 caregivers). Descriptive statistics were generated using cross-tabulation. Comparisons with categorical data were conducted using the chi-square test, whereas the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons involving ordinal variables. ResultsOverall, 86.1% (323/375) of the participants reported having internet access. Caregivers were more likely than stroke survivors to access the internet (N=375, χ21=18.5, P12 months after a stroke reported higher internet access than those who survived

BackgroundMinorities have an increased incidence of early-onset, obesity-related cerebrovascular disease. Unfortunately, effective weight management in this vulnerable population has significant barriers. ObjectiveOur objective was to determine the feasibility and preliminary treatment effects of a smartphone-based weight loss intervention versus food journals to monitor dietary patterns in minority stroke patients. MethodsSwipe out Stroke was a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial with open blinded end point. Minority stroke patients and their caregivers were screened for participation using cluster enrollment. We used adaptive randomization for assignment to a behavior intervention with (1) smartphone-based self-monitoring or (2) food journal self-monitoring. The smartphone group used Lose it! to record meals and communicate with us. Reminder messages (first 30 days), weekly summaries plus reminder messages on missed days (days 31-90), and weekly summaries only (days 91-180) were sent via push notifications. The food journal group used paper diaries. Both groups received 4 in-person visits (baseline and 30, 90, and 180 days), culturally competent counseling, and educational materials. The primary outcome was reduced total body weight. ResultsWe enrolled 36 stroke patients (n=23, 64% African American; n=13, 36% Hispanic), 17 in the smartphone group, and 19 in the food journal group. Mean age was 54 (SD 9) years; mean body mass index was 35.7 (SD 5.7) kg/m2; education, employment status, and family history of stroke or obesity did not differ between the groups. Baseline rates of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] score median 5.5, IQR 3.0-9.5), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment score median 23.5, IQR 21-26), and inability to ambulate (5/36, 14% with modified Rankin Scale score 3) were similar. In total, 25 (69%) stroke survivors completed Swipe out Stroke (13/17 in the smartphone group, 12/19 in the food journal group); 1 participant in the smartphone group died. Median weight change at 180 days was 5.7 lb (IQR –2.4 to 8.0) in the smartphone group versus 6.4 lb (IQR –2.2 to 12.5; P=.77) in the food journal group. Depression was significantly lower at 30 days in the smartphone group than in the food journal group (PHQ-9 score 2 vs 8; P=.03). Clinically relevant depression rates remained in the zero to minimal range for the smartphone group compared with mild to moderate range in the food journal group at day 90 (PHQ-9 score 3.5 vs 4.5; P=.39) and day 180 (PHQ-9 score 3 vs 6; P=.12). ConclusionsIn a population of obese minority stroke survivors, the use of a smartphone did not lead to a significant difference in weight change compared with keeping a food journal. The presence of baseline depression (19/36, 53%) was a confounding variable, which improved with app engagement. Future studies that include treatment of poststroke depression may positively influence intervention efficacy. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02531074; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02531074

Background and purposeThe Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) sponsored an imaging session and workshop during the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable XI via webinar on October 1 to 2, 2020, to develop consensus recommendations, particularly regarding optimal imaging at primary stroke centers.MethodsThis forum brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss imaging priorities in the light of developments in reperfusion therapies, particularly in an extended time window, and reinvigorated interest in brain cytoprotection trials.ResultsThe imaging session summarized and compared the imaging components of recent acute stroke trials and debated the optimal imaging strategy at primary stroke centers. The imaging workshop developed consensus recommendations for optimizing the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of computed tomography and magnetic resonance acute stroke imaging, and also recommendations on imaging strategies for primary stroke centers.ConclusionsRecent positive acute stroke clinical trials have extended the treatment window for reperfusion therapies using imaging selection. Achieving rapid and high-quality stroke imaging is therefore critical at both primary and comprehensive stroke centers. Recommendations for enhancing stroke imaging research are provided.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to investigate whether the elimination of trial admissions and the initiation of documentation requirements, via the 2010 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System Rule, limited inpatient rehabilitation facility access while increasing skilled nursing facility utilization compared with home discharge in ischemic stroke patients.DesignThis is a retrospective observational study using Get with the Guidelines - Stroke hospital data between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015 (N = 1,643,553).ResultsBetween January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, 54.1% of patients went home, 25.4% to inpatient rehabilitation facility and 20.5% to skilled nursing facility. Between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, there was a 1.4% absolute increase in home discharge, a 1.1% inpatient rehabilitation facility decline and a 0.3% skilled nursing facility decline.Within the 1.1% absolute decline in inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge, the adjusted odds of inpatient rehabilitation facility versus home discharge decreased 12% after 2010 Rule (adjusted odds ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.87-0.89, P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant change in skilled nursing facility versus home discharge.Lower adjusted odds of inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge versus home discharge were identical across age groups and were present in all geographic regions.ConclusionsIn populations with ischemic stroke, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2010 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System Rule was associated with a 1.1% absolute decrease in inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge, with a concomitant increase in home discharge rather than to skilled nursing facility.

Domain-specific endpoints are assessments that correspond to the output of individual neural systems and are useful for capturing treatment effects on specific behaviors. By contrast, global endpoints combine several attributes into a single score and are useful for capturing broad treatment effects in a summary way. While global endpoints have become the de facto mechanism required to define benefit in stroke trials, they also have important limitations, some of which might be addressed by simultaneously measuring domain-specific endpoints. Substantial opportunity remains to identify quantifiable patient benefit that would otherwise not be captured by global endpoints. Potential advantages of incorporating domain-specific endpoints in acute stroke trials are discussed, such as increased granularity of measurement, improved understanding of how therapies affect the brain between acute treatment and day 90, and optimized therapeutic translation. Potential disadvantages are also considered, including time and cost of administering domain-specific endpoints, as well as statistical implications. Domain-specific endpoints and global endpoints are not mutually exclusive, and both capture clinical benefits to patients. Incorporating a broader set of outcome assessments in stroke trials, including both global and domain-specific endpoints, is warranted.

Stroke recovery is the next frontier in stroke medicine. While growth in rehabilitation and recovery research is exponential, a number of barriers hamper our ability to rapidly progress the field. Standardized terminology is absent in both animal and human research, methods are poorly described, recovery biomarkers are not well defined, and we lack consistent timeframes or measures to examine outcomes. Agreed methods and conventions for developing, monitoring, evaluating and reporting interventions directed at improving recovery are lacking, and current approaches are often not underpinned by biology. We urgently need to better understand the biology of recovery and its time course in both animals and humans to translate evidence from basic science into clinical trials. A new international partnership of stroke recovery and rehabilitation experts has committed to advancing the research agenda. In May 2016, the first Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable will be held, with the aim of achieving an agreed approach to the development, conduct and reporting of research. A range of methods will be used to achieve consensus in four priority areas: pre-clinical recovery research; biomarkers of recovery; intervention development, monitoring and reporting; and measurement in clinical trials. We hope to foster a global network of researchers committed to advancing this exciting field. Recovery from stroke is challenging for many survivors. They deserve effective treatments underpinned by our evolving understanding of brain recovery and human behaviour. Working together, we can develop game-changing interventions to improve recovery and quality of life in those living with stroke.