Optimal Randomization Designs for Large Multicenter Clinical Trials: From the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network Funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Experience.

From 2016 to 2021, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke initiated ten multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials. Optimal subject randomization designs are demanded with 4 critical properties: (1) protection of treatment assignment randomness, (2) achievement of the desired treatment allocation ratio, (3) balancing of baseline covariates, and (4) ease of implementation. For acute stroke trials, it is necessary to minimize the time between eligibility assessment and treatment initiation. This article reviews the randomization designs for 3 trials currently enrolling in Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the SATURN (Statins in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Trial), the MOST (Multiarm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis Trial), and the FASTEST (Recombinant Factor VIIa for Hemorrhagic Stroke Trial). Randomization methods utilized in these trials include minimal sufficient balance, block urn design, big stick design, and step-forward randomization. Their advantages and limitations are reviewed and compared with traditional stratified permuted block design and minimization.

Effect of Cilostazol in Animal Models of Cerebral Ischemia and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, appears to be a promising agent for preventing cerebral ischemia in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Here, the authors perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the effects of cilostazol on brain structural and functional outcomes in animal models of cerebral ischemia and subarachnoid hemorrhage-induced cerebral vasospasm. METHODS: By using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies. Study quality of each included study for both systematic reviews were scored by using an adapted 15-item checklist from the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis of Animal Data from Experimental Studies. We calculated a standardized mean difference as effect size for each comparison. For each outcome, comparisons were combined by using random-effects modeling to account for heterogeneity, with a restricted maximum likelihood estimate of between-study variance. RESULTS: A total of 22 (median [Q1, Q3] quality score of 7 [5, 8]) and 6 (median [Q1, Q3] quality score of 6 [6, 6]) studies were identified for cerebral ischemia and subarachnoid hemorrhage-induced cerebral vasospasm, respectively. Cilostazol significantly reduced the infarct volume in cerebral ischemia models with a pooled standardized mean difference estimate of - 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.07 to - 0.70], p < 0.0001). Cilostazol significantly reduced neurofunctional deficits in cerebral ischemia models with a pooled standardized mean difference estimate of - 0.66 (95% CI [- 1.06 to - 0.28], p < 0.0001). Cilostazol significantly improved the basilar artery diameter in subarachnoid hemorrhage-induced cerebral vasospasm with a pooled standardized mean difference estimate of 2.30 (95% CI [0.94 to 3.67], p = 0.001). Cilostazol also significantly improved the basilar artery cross-section area with a pooled standardized mean estimate of 1.88 (95% CI [0.33 to 3.43], p < 0.05). Overall, there was between-study heterogeneity and asymmetry in the funnel plot observed in all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Published animal data support the overall efficacy of cilostazol in reducing infarct volume and neurofunctional deficits in cerebral ischemia models and cerebral vasospasm in subarachnoid hemorrhage models.

Lessons Learned from Phase II and Phase III Trials Investigating Therapeutic Agents for Cerebral Ischemia Associated with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

One of the challenges in bringing new therapeutic agents (since nimodipine) in for the treatment of cerebral ischemia associated with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is the incongruence in therapeutic benefit observed between phase II and subsequent phase III clinical trials. Therefore, identifying areas for improvement in the methodology and interpretation of results is necessary to increase the value of phase II trials. We performed a systematic review of phase II trials that continued into phase III trials, evaluating a therapeutic agent for the treatment of cerebral ischemia associated with aSAH. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews, and review was based on a peer-reviewed protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews no. 222965). A total of nine phase III trials involving 7,088 patients were performed based on eight phase II trials involving 1558 patients. The following therapeutic agents were evaluated in the selected phase II and phase III trials: intravenous tirilazad, intravenous nicardipine, intravenous clazosentan, intravenous magnesium, oral statins, and intraventricular nimodipine. Shortcomings in several design elements of the phase II aSAH trials were identified that may explain the incongruence between phase II and phase III trial results. We suggest the consideration of the following strategies to improve phase II design: increased focus on the selection of surrogate markers of efficacy, selection of the optimal dose and timing of intervention, adjustment for exaggerated estimate of treatment effect in sample size calculations, use of prespecified go/no-go criteria using futility design, use of multicenter design, enrichment of the study population, use of concurrent control or placebo group, and use of innovative trial designs such as seamless phase II to III design. Modifying the design of phase II trials on the basis of lessons learned from previous phase II and phase III trial combinations is necessary to plan more effective phase III trials.