Nimodipine-associated standard dose reductions and neurologic outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: the era of pharmacogenomics.

Nimodipine, an L-type cerebroselective calcium channel antagonist, is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the neuroprotection of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Four randomized, placebo-controlled trials of nimodipine demonstrated clinical improvement over placebo; however, these occurred before precision medicine with pharmacogenomics was readily available. The standard enteral dose of nimodipine recommended after aSAH is 60 mg every 4 h. However, up to 78% of patients with aSAH develop systemic arterial hypotension after taking the drug at the recommended dose, which could theoretically limit its neuroprotective role and worsen cerebral perfusion pressure and cerebral blood flow, particularly when concomitant vasospasm is present. We investigated the association between nimodipine dose changes and clinical outcomes in a consecutive series of 150 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70.7% women) with acute aSAH. We describe the pharmacogenomic relationship of nimodipine dose reduction with clinical outcomes. These results have major implications for future individualized dosing of nimodipine in the era of precision medicine.

Comparison of nimodipine formulations and administration techniques via enteral feeding tubes in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nimodipine improves outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and current guidelines suggest that patients with aSAH receive nimodipine for 21 days. Patients with no difficulty swallowing will swallow the whole capsules or tablets; otherwise, nimodipine liquid must be drawn from capsules, tablets need to be crushed, or the commercially available liquid product be used to facilitate administration through an enteral feeding tube (FT). It is not clear whether these techniques are equivalent. The goal of the study was to determine if different nimodipine formulations and administration techniques were associated with the safety and effectiveness of nimodipine in aSAH. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter observational cohort study conducted in 21 hospitals across North America. Patients admitted with aSAH and received nimodipine by FT for ≥3 days were included. Patient demographics, disease severity, nimodipine administration, and study outcomes were collected. Safety end points included the prevalence of diarrhea and nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to blood pressure reduction. Predictors of the study outcomes were analyzed using regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 727 patients were included. Administration of nimodipine liquid product was independently associated with higher prevalence of diarrhea compared to other administration techniques/formulations (Odds ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-3.67, p-value = 0.001, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.37-5.55, p-value = 0.005, for old and new commercially available formulations, respectively). Bedside withdrawal of liquid from nimodipine capsules prior to administration was significantly associated with higher prevalence of nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to hypotension (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57-5.06, p-value = 0.001). Tablet crushing and bedside withdrawal of liquid from capsules prior to administration were associated with increased odds of delayed cerebral ischemia (OR 6.66, 95% CI 3.48-12.74, p-value <0.0001 and OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.05-7.52, p-value <0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that enteral nimodipine formulations and administration techniques might not be equivalent. This could be attributed to excipient differences, inconsistency and inaccuracy in medication administration, and altered nimodipine bioavailability. Further studies are needed.

In vivo phenotypic validation of adenosine receptor-dependent activity of non-adenosine drugs.

Some non-adenosinergic drugs are reported to also act through adenosine receptors (ARs). We used mouse hypothermia, which can be induced by agonism at any of the four ARs, as an in vivo screen for adenosinergic effects. An AR contribution was identified when a drug caused hypothermia in wild type mice that was diminished in mice lacking all four ARs (quadruple knockout, QKO). Alternatively, an adenosinergic effect was identified if a drug potentiated adenosine-induced hypothermia. Four drugs (dipyridamole, nimodipine, cilostazol, cyclosporin A) increased the hypothermia caused by adenosine. Dipyridamole and nimodipine probably achieved this by inhibition of adenosine clearance via ENT1. Two drugs (cannabidiol, canrenoate) did not cause hypothermia in wild type mice. Four other drugs (nifedipine, ranolazine, ketamine, ethanol) caused hypothermia, but the hypothermia was unchanged in QKO mice indicating non-adenosinergic mechanisms. Zinc chloride caused hypothermia and hypoactivity; the hypoactivity was blunted in the QKO mice. Interestingly, the antidepressant amitriptyline caused hypothermia in wild type mice that was amplified in the QKO mice. Thus, we have identified adenosine-related effects for some drugs, while other candidates do not affect adenosine signaling by this in vivo assay. The adenosine-modulating drugs could be considered for repurposing based on predicted effects on AR activation.

Efficacy of Nimodipine Combined with Latanoprost in Treating Open-Angle Glaucoma and Its Influence on Ocular Hemodynamics and Visual Field Defects.

Background: Open-angle glaucoma is a common ophthalmic disease, which has a great impact on the vision of middle-aged and elderly people. Medication plays an important role in the treatment of glaucoma, so finding effective drug treatment is of great significance to improve the quality of life of glaucoma patients. Objective: To explore the curative effect of nimodipine combined with latanoprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and its effect on ocular hemodynamics and visual field defects. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 87 patients with open-angle glaucoma who came to the Shanxi Province Fenyang Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Datong University for treatment from January 2019 to January 2021. According to different treatment plans, the patients were divided into two groups: an observation group (n = 46) treated with nimodipine combined with latanoprost, and a control group (n = 41) treated by latanoprost monotherapy. Treatment efficacy, hemodynamics, visual field defects, 24-hour peak intraocular pressure, binocular optic disc parameters, adverse reactions and quality of life were recorded and compared between two groups of patients. Results: The overall therapeutic effect of the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group. After treatment, ocular hemodynamics, visual field defects, 24-hour peak intraocular pressure, binocular optic disc parameters and life quality of both groups were obviously improved compared to those before treatment, with more significant improvements in the observation group. In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. Conclusion: Nimodipine combined with latanoprost eye drops is effective in the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma, which could effectively improve the ocular hemodynamics and visual field defects of patients with fewer adverse reactions and higher safety. Therefore, it can be further promoted and used in clinical practice.

Prophylactic nimodipine treatment for hearing preservation after vestibular schwannoma surgery: study protocol of a randomized multi-center phase III trial-AkniPro 2.

BACKGROUND: A previously performed phase III trial on 112 subjects investigating prophylactic nimodipine treatment in vestibular schwannoma (VS) surgery showed no clear beneficial effects on preservation of facial and cochlear nerve functions, though it should be considered that protection of facial nerve function was the primary outcome. However, the risk for postoperative hearing loss was halved in the nimodipine group compared to the control group (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.30; p = 0.15). Accordingly, this phase III extension trial investigates the efficacy and safety of prophylactic nimodipine for hearing preservation in VS surgery. METHODS: This is a randomized, multi-center, two-armed, open-label phase III trial with blinded expert review and two-stage with interim analysis. Three hundred thirty-six adults with the indication for microsurgical removal of VS (Koos I-IV) and serviceable preoperative hearing (Gardner-Robertson scale (GR) 1-3) are assigned to either the therapy (intravenous nimodipine 1-2 mg/h from the day before surgery until the fifth postoperative day and standard of care) or the control group (surgery only and standard of care). The primary endpoint of the trial is postoperative cochlear nerve function measured before discharge according to GR 1-3 versus GR 4-5 (binary). Hearing function will be determined by pre- and postoperative audiometry with speech discrimination, which will be evaluated by a blinded expert reviewer. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes using standardized questionnaires will be analyzed. DISCUSSION: Prophylactic parenteral nimodipine treatment may have a positive effect on hearing preservation in VS surgery and would improve patient's quality of life. Further secondary analyses are planned. Except for dose-depending hypotension, nimodipine is known as a safe drug. In the future, prophylactic nimodipine treatment may be recommended as a routine medication in VS surgery. VS can be considered as an ideal model for clinical evaluation of neuroprotection, since hearing outcome can be classified by well-recognized criteria. The beneficial effect of nimodipine may be transferable to other surgical procedures with nerves at risk and may have impact on basic research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2019-002317-19, DRKS00019107 . 8th May 2020.

Efficacy and Safety of the Association of Nimodipine and Choline Alphoscerate in the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Cerebral Small Vessel Disease. The CONIVaD Trial.

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment is available for patients with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) due to cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). OBJECTIVE: The CONIVaD (Choline Alphoscerate and Nimodipine in Vascular Dementia) study aimed to investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a combined treatment with choline alphoscerate and nimodipine in patients with SVD and mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. METHODS: Within this pilot, single-center (university hospital), double-blinded, randomized clinical trial, patients were randomized to two arms: 1-year treatment with nimodipine 30 mg three times a day (TID) plus choline alphoscerate 600 mg twice a day (BID) (arm 1) or nimodipine 30 mg TID plus placebo BID (arm 2). Patients underwent an evaluation at baseline and after 12 months. Cognitive decline, defined as a ≥ 2-point loss on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, was the primary endpoint. Functional, quality of life, other cognitive measures, and safety were secondary endpoints. Treatment adherence was measured by the count of medicine bottles returned by patients. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized (31 each arm). Fourteen patients (22%) dropped out for reasons including consent withdrawal (n = 9), adverse reactions (n = 4), and stroke (n = 1). Forty-eight patients (mean ± SD age 75.1 ± 6.8 years), well balanced between arms, completed the study. Regarding adherence, of the prescribed total drug dose, > 75% was taken by 96% of patients for choline alphoscerate, 87.5% for placebo, and 15% for nimodipine. No statistically significant differences were found between the treatment groups for the primary cognitive outcome, nor for the secondary outcomes. Eight patients had non-serious adverse reactions; five presented adverse events. CONCLUSION: Patients' adherence to treatment was low. With this limitation, the combined choline alphoscerate-nimodipine treatment showed no significant effect in our cohort of VCI patients with SVD. The safety profile was good overall. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial NCT03228498. Registered 25 July 2017.

Failed Neuroprotection of Combined Inhibition of L-Type and ASIC1a Calcium Channels with Nimodipine and Amiloride.

Effective pharmacological neuroprotection is one of the most desired aims in modern medicine. We postulated that a combination of two clinically used drugs-nimodipine (L-Type voltage-gated calcium channel blocker) and amiloride (acid-sensing ion channel inhibitor)-might act synergistically in an experimental model of ischaemia, targeting the intracellular rise in calcium as a pathway in neuronal cell death. We used organotypic hippocampal slices of mice pups and a well-established regimen of oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) to assess a possible neuroprotective effect. Neither nimodipine (at 10 or 20 µM) alone or in combination with amiloride (at 100 µM) showed any amelioration. Dissolved at 2.0 Vol.% dimethyl-sulfoxide (DMSO), the combination of both components even increased cell damage (p = 0.0001), an effect not observed with amiloride alone. We conclude that neither amiloride nor nimodipine do offer neuroprotection in an in vitro ischaemia model. On a technical note, the use of DMSO should be carefully evaluated in neuroprotective experiments, since it possibly alters cell damage.

NEWTON-2 Cisternal (Nimodipine Microparticles to Enhance Recovery While Reducing Toxicity After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage): A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Safety Study of Intracisternal EG-1962 in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: A sustained release microparticle formulation of nimodipine (EG-1962) was developed for treatment of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of intracisternal EG-1962 in an open-label, randomized, phase 2 study of up to 12 subjects. METHODS: Subjects were World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grades 1 to 2, modified Fisher grades 2 to 4, and underwent aneurysm clipping within 48 h of aSAH. EG-1962, containing 600 mg nimodipine, was administered into the basal cisterns. Outcome on the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (eGOS), pharmacokinetics, delayed cerebral ischemia and infarction, rescue therapy, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: The study was halted when a phase 3 study of intraventricular EG-1962 stopped because that study was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Six subjects were randomized (5 EG-1962 and 1 oral nimodipine). After 90-d follow-up, favorable outcome on the eGOS occurred in 1 of 5 EG-1962 and in the single oral nimodipine patient. Four EG-1962 and the oral nimodipine subject had angiographic vasospasm. One EG-1962 subject had delayed cerebral ischemia, and all subjects with angiographic vasospasm received rescue therapy except 1 EG-1962 patient. One subject treated with EG-1962 developed right internal carotid and middle cerebral artery narrowing 5 mo after placement of EG-1962, leading to occlusion and cerebral infarction. Pharmacokinetics showed similar plasma concentrations of nimodipine in both groups. CONCLUSION: Angiographic vasospasm and unfavorable clinical outcome still occurred after placement of EG-1962. Internal carotid artery narrowing and occlusion after placement of EG-1962 in the basal cisterns has not been reported.

Nimodipine-induced junctional bradycardia in an elderly patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Subarachnoid hemorrhage is a devastating form of stroke with often detrimental outcomes for patients. Here we describe a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage treated with nimodipine, which resulted in marked bradycardia with junctional atrioventricular heart block. Nimodipine is metabolized predominantly by the cytochrome P450 3A subfamily, and its use is often associated with adverse events, such as hypotension and bradycardia, which can be exacerbated by advanced age. Our patient had the CYP3A5*3/*3 genotype, possibly predisposing her to poor metabolism of this drug. Our case report demonstrates the potential for pharmacogenomics in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage to help predict their response to nimodipine, minimize adverse drug reactions, and potentially individualize dosing to improve future clinical outcomes.

The Impact of Nimodipine Administration through Feeding Tube on Outcomes in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

PURPOSE: Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) and vasospasm are the main challenges contributing to unfavorable outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nimodipine has been shown to decrease the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia and improve outcomes. In patients who are unable to swallow, nimodipine tablets are crushed and administered through enteral feeding tubes. However, it is not clear whether this may result in reduced clinical effectiveness. The aims of the study were to investigate the impact of nimodipine administration through enteral feeding tubes, in the first 7 days and over the 21-days period on patient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients admitted at the University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada was carried out. Logistic regression modelling was utilized to identify predictors of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia. Main outcome measures were angiographic evidence of moderate to severe vasospasm, development of delayed cerebral ischemia and hospital mortality. RESULTS: 85 patients were included. Following adjustment for disease severity, nimodipine administration technique was associated with vasospasm in the first 7 days of patient admission where patients receiving nimodipine via enteral feeding tubes had increased odds of vasospasm compared to those administered it as whole tablets (OR 8.9, 95% CI 1.1-73.1, p value 0.042). When analyzed over the 21-day period, nimodipine administration by feeding tube was associated with increased odds of DCI compared to whole tablets (OR 38.1, 95% CI 1.4-1067.9, p value 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that nimodipine administration via enteral feeding tubes may be associated with vasospasm and DCI in subarachnoid hemorrhage patients secondary to reduced exposure. Prospective studies are needed to confirm such association and alternate methods of administration should be explored to ensure patients are getting the benefits of nimodipine.

Therapeutic effect of piracetam with nimodipine on vascular dementia after cerebral infarction.

This article investigated the clinical effects of piracetam with nimodipine in the treatment of vascular dementia (VD) after cerebral infarction. 98 patients with vascular dementia after cerebral infarction were selected and divided into the control group and the study group according to the treatment method. The control group was treated with nimodipine alone. The study group was treated with piracetam on the basis of this observation, and we test the ADL (life ability score), MoCA(montreal cognitive assessment scale), ADAS-Cog(alzheimer's scale-cognition), MMSE(mental status examination) scores and quality of life scores before and after treatment in the two groups. Before treatment, there were no significant differences in ADL, MoCA, and ADAS-Cog scores between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment, the ADL, MoCA, and ADAS-Cog scores of the study group were superior to the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in MMSE scores between the two groups before treatment and 1 month after treatment (P>0.05). The MMSE scores of the study group were better than the control group after 3 months of treatment and half a year after treatment. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the quality of life scores between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment, the quality of life scores was significantly higher than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). For patients with vascular dementia after cerebral infarction, piracetam combined with nimodipine can improve the cognitive function, improve the quality of life, and have a significant clinical effect.

Does Nimodipine Interruption due to High Catecholamine Doses Lead to a Greater Incidence of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia in the Setting of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage?

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the administration of nimodipine for the prevention of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). However, nimodipine can lead to significant drops in mean arterial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure. Catecholamines are then used to maintain them while nimodipine is reduced and/or held. There is no evidence that nimodipine retains its neuroprotective effect at lower doses. We aimed to investigate the role of nimodipine interruption in the setting of aSAH and its possible impact on the incidence of DCI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in patients with aSAH admitted to our center from January 2012 to October 2015. Nimodipine prophylaxis duration and dosage and the incidence of DCI were recorded. Bivariate correlation with Spearman's rho (ρ) and ordinal regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included in the study. Of these, 165 (97.1%) received nimodipine prophylaxis starting on day 0. Nimodipine was interrupted in 85 of 165 (51.5%), whereas dose was reduced in 47 of 165 (28.5%); full dose was received by only 33 of 165 (20%). DCI was observed in 85 of 170 (50%). Nimodipine interruption correlated in a statistically significant way with a greater incidence of DCI (ρ = 0.431, P < 0.001); receiving full doses of nimodipine showed a statistically significant inverse correlation to DCI (ρ = -0.273, P < 0.001). Ordinal regression analysis revealed nimodipine interruption as a statistically significant independent predictor of DCI (odds ratio 0.194; 95% confidence interval 0.079-0.474, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis reveals a greater incidence of DCI in patients with aSAH when nimodipine is interrupted.

Poor Utilization of Nimodipine in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: To determine adherence to nimodipine administration in patients admitted with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). BACKGROUND: Oral nimodipine (60 mg every 4 hours for 21 days) is recommended by the national guidelines for aSAH. A Cochrane systematic review has determined that nimodipine reduces the risk of cerebral ischemia and is currently the only effective drug for the prevention of vasospasm in aSAH patients. DESIGN/METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 109 patients with aSAH admitted to the Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at a tertiary care medical center between 2010 and 2013. Nimodipine-prescribing patterns, days of therapy completed, and adverse effects were tabulated. Patients not initiated on nimodipine and reasons for prematurely stopping therapy were noted. RESULTS: One hundred two (93%) patients with aSAH were started on oral nimodipine upon admission to the NICU. Early death (3%) and hypotension (1%) were reasons why patients were not started on nimodipine. Only 36 (33%) patients received nimodipine, 60 mg orally every 4 hours for 21 days. In 26 patients (39%), the dose of nimodipine was reduced because of excessive drops in blood pressure. Transient discontinuation occurred in 2 (2%) patients. Thirty one (47%) patients were discharged from the hospital before 21 days and nimodipine was not ordered to continue at home. CONCLUSION: We found that the majority of patients with aSAH in our practice did not complete 21 days of nimodipine. Hypotension was mostly responsible for dosing change or discontinuation.

Calcium antagonists for acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: The sudden loss of blood supply in ischemic stroke is associated with an increase of calcium ions within neurons. Inhibiting this increase could protect neurons and might reduce neurological impairment, disability, and handicap after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium antagonists for reducing the risk of death or dependency after acute ischemic stroke. We investigated the influence of different drugs, dosages, routes of administration, time intervals after stroke, and trial design on the outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: The evidence is current to 6 February 2018. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (6 February 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 6 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 February 2018), and four Chinese databases (6 February 2018): Chinese Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Periodical Database of VIP information, and Wanfang Data. We also searched the following trials registers: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, Stroke Trials Registry, ISRCTN registry, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and we contacted trialists and researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing a calcium antagonist versus control in people with acute ischemic stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. We used death or dependency at the end of long-term follow-up (at least three months) in activities of daily living as the primary outcome. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 trials involving 7731 participants. All the participants were in the acute stage of ischemic stroke, and their age ranged from 18 to 85 years, with the average age ranging from 52.3 to 74.6 years across different trials. There were more men than women in most trials. Twenty-six trials tested nimodipine, and three trials assessed flunarizine. One trial each used isradipine, nicardipine, PY108-608, fasudil, and lifarizine. More than half of these trials followed participants for at least three months. Calcium antagonists showed no effects on the primary outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.13; 22 trials; 22 studies; 6684 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or on death at the end of follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.17; 31 trials; 7483 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Thirteen trials reported adverse events, finding no significant differences between groups. Most trials did not report the allocation process or how they managed missing data, so we considered these at high risk of selection and attrition bias. Most trials reported double-blind methods but did not state who was blinded, and none of the trial protocols were available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the use of calcium antagonists in people with acute ischemic stroke.

Clinical Trial Protocol: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Efficacy, and Safety Study Comparing EG-1962 to Standard of Care Oral Nimodipine in Adults with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage [NEWTON-2 (Nimodipine Microparticles to Enhance Recovery While Reducing TOxicity After SubarachNoid Hemorrhage)].

BACKGROUND: Nimodipine is the only drug approved in the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) in many countries. EG-1962, a product developed using the Precisa™ platform, is an extended-release microparticle formulation of nimodipine that can be administered intraventricularly or intracisternally. It was developed to test the hypothesis that delivering higher concentrations of extended-release nimodipine directly to the cerebrospinal fluid would provide superior efficacy compared to systemic administration. RESULTS: A Phase 1/2a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open-label, dose-escalation study determined the maximum tolerated dose and supported the safety and tolerability of EG-1962 in patients with aSAH. EG-1962, 600 mg, was selected for a pivotal, Phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group efficacy, and safety study comparing it to standard of care oral nimodipine in adults with aSAH. Key inclusion criteria are patients with a ruptured saccular aneurysm repaired by clipping or coiling, World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade 2-4, and modified Fisher score of > 1. Patients must have an external ventricular drain as part of standard of care. Patients are randomized to receive intraventricular investigational product (EG-1962 or NaCl solution) and an oral placebo or oral nimodipine in the approved dose regimen (active control) within 48 h of aSAH. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of EG-1962 compared to oral nimodipine. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects with favorable outcome (6-8) on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale assessed 90 days after aSAH. The secondary endpoint is the proportion of subjects with favorable outcome on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 90 days after aSAH. Data on safety, rescue therapy, delayed cerebral infarction, and health economics will be collected. Trail registration NCT02790632.

Impact of Early Versus Late Intravenous Followed by Oral Nimodipine Treatment on the Occurrence of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia Among Patients With Aneurysm Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for aneurysm subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) management recommend treatment with nimodipine to all patients to reduce delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) and poor clinical outcome. However, it did not give the most beneficial time to start therapy and route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To compare the DCI occurrence and clinical outcome among aSAH patients who received nimodipine treatment at different times. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by collecting data from medical chart reviews between August 30, 2010, and October 31, 2015, at Prasart Neurological Institute, Thailand. Patients were classified into 2 groups by time to receive nimodipine: early group and late group (<96 and >96 hours, respectively). All patients received intravenous (IV) followed by oral nimodipine to complete treatment course. Clinical outcome was graded using the Glasgow Outcome Scale at 21 days. The factors related to DCI were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were recruited: early (n = 97) and late (n = 52). No difference in baseline characteristics between groups was observed. The occurrence of DCI was not statistically significantly different between groups (early group, 18.60%, vs late group, 20.80%; P = 0.74). The World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies IV to V was associated with DCI occurrence. The proportion of patients with good outcome, poor outcome, or death did not show any difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Receiving IV nimodipine 3 to 7 days following oral therapy after bleeding can be the alternative regimen in patients who did not start nimodipine within 96 hours.

Dangers of outpatient nimodipine use after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage in accordance with the Comprehensive Stroke Center guidelines.

Despite the adverse effects and unclear benefit of the complete 21-day course of nimodipine therapy, The Joint Commission mandates adherence to nimodipine treatment for 21 days after hemorrhage or after hospital discharge if discharged within 21 days for Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) certification. We hereby present a 67 year-old male patient with Hunt-Hess grade 2 and Fisher grade 3 non-aneurysmal spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage who was discharged with oral nimodipine as stipulated by the CSC guidelines, and subsequently developed symptomatic hypotension. This report underscores the danger of outpatient nimodipine use and questions the optimal length of nimodipine therapy, especially in patients with low risk of vasospasm. Future studies, including randomized controlled trials and cost-effectiveness studies, are necessary to clarify the benefit of 21-day nimodipine therapy compared to a shortened duration of nimodipine.