Thrombolysis for Wake-Up Stroke Versus Non-Wake-Up Unwitnessed Stroke: EOS Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Stroke with unknown time of onset can be categorized into 2 groups; wake-up stroke (WUS) and unwitnessed stroke with an onset time unavailable for reasons other than wake-up (non-wake-up unwitnessed stroke, non-WUS). We aimed to assess potential differences in the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) between these subgroups. METHODS: Patients with an unknown-onset stroke were evaluated using individual patient-level data of 2 randomized controlled trials (WAKE-UP [Efficacy and Safety of MRI-Based Thrombolysis in Wake-Up Stroke], THAWS [Thrombolysis for Acute Wake-Up and Unclear-Onset Strokes With Alteplase at 0.6 mg/kg]) comparing IVT with placebo or standard treatment from the EOS (Evaluation of Unknown-Onset Stroke Thrombolysis trial) data set. A favorable outcome was prespecified as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 22 to 36 hours and 90-day mortality. The IVT effect was compared between the treatment groups in the WUS and non-WUS with multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-four patients from 2 trials were analyzed; 542 had WUS (191 women, 272 receiving alteplase), and 92 had non-WUS (42 women, 43 receiving alteplase). Overall, no significant interaction was noted between the mode of onset and treatment effect (P value for interaction=0.796). In patients with WUS, the frequencies of favorable outcomes were 54.8% and 45.5% in the IVT and control groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.01-2.16]). Death occurred in 4.0% and 1.9%, respectively (P=0.162), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in 1.8% and 0.3%, respectively (P=0.194). In patients with non-WUS, no significant difference was observed in favorable outcomes relative to the control (37.2% versus 29.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.76 [0.58-5.37]). One death and one symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were reported in the IVT group, but none in the control. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the effect of IVT between patients with WUS and non-WUS. IVT showed a significant benefit in patients with WUS, while there was insufficient statistical power to detect a substantial benefit in the non-WUS subgroup. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: CRD42020166903.

High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin versus albumin 4% in paediatric toxic shock syndrome: a randomised controlled feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is a rare disease responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IG) therapy in paediatric TSS could improve shock and organ failure, but more consistent efficacy and safety data are needed. Our objective was to determine whether a randomised clinical trial (RCT) assessing intravenous IG in TSS in children is feasible. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, feasibility, double-blind RCT assessing efficacy of high-dose intravenous IG versus albumin 4% (control group) within the first 12 hours of shock onset. Included patients were aged above 1 month and below 18 years with suspected TSS and septic shock. Feasibility was assessed by measuring inclusion rate, protocol compliance and missing data regarding death and the Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) Score. Other secondary clinical outcomes were evaluated during hospital stay, at 60 day and 1 year. RESULTS: 28 patients, admitted in 6 paediatric intensive care units during 36 consecutive months and followed for 1 year, received the allocated treatment: 13 in intravenous IG group, 15 in control group. The median age was 10.6 years and the sex ratio was 1. Inclusion rate was above 50%, protocol deviations were below 30% and missing data regarding death and PELOD-2 Score below 10%. No difference concerning secondary clinical outcomes between groups was observed, and more adverse events were reported in the control group. CONCLUSION: It seems to be feasible to conduct an RCT assessing intravenous IG efficacy and safety in paediatric TSS but must be realised internationally, with choice of a clinically relevant endpoint and a specific design in order to be realistic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02219165.