[Therapies for the Improvement of Stroke Recovery - Assessment of Clinical Trial Results]. / Therapien zur Verbesserung der Schlaganfall-Regeneration ­ Ergebnisse klinischer Studien im wissenschaftlichen Kontext.

Recovery processes after stroke include restoration or compensation of function initially lost or newly acquired after injury. Therapeutic interventions can either directly improve these processes and/or inhibit processes that impede regeneration. Numerous experimental studies suggested a great opportunity for such treatments, but the results from recent large clinical trials with neuromodulators such as dopamine and fluoxetine have been rather disappointing. The reasons for this are manifold and involve the extrapolation of results from animal models to humans. Given the differences between animals and humans in genetic and epigenetic background, brain size and anatomy, cerebral vascular anatomy, immune system, as well as clinical function, and behavior, direct extrapolation is unlikely to work. Backward blockades include the incompatible adaption of clinical trial objectives and outcomes in clinical trials with regard to previous preclinical findings. For example, the clinical recovery trial design widely varies and has been characterized by the selection of different clinical endpoints, the inclusion a wide spectrum of stroke subtypes and clinical syndromes, and different time windows for treatment initiation after onset of infarction. This review will discuss these aspects based on the results of the recent stroke recovery trials with the aim to contributing to the development of a therapy that improves the functional outcome of a chronic stroke patient.

Discrepancy between theoretical knowledge and real action in acute stroke: self-assessment as an important predictor of time to admission.

BACKGROUND: Poor knowledge of stroke symptoms within the general population might be responsible for significant delay between symptom onset and hospital admission in most stroke patients. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated whether theoretical knowledge about stroke influenced time to admission among 102 consecutive acute stroke patients using standardized questionnaires. We assessed in multiple logistic regression models the influence of theoretical knowledge (knowledge about stroke symptoms and knowledge about the appropriate actions to be taken in the case of a stroke) on the real actions taken in the acute situation. Predictors of a delayed hospital admission greater than 2 hours after stroke onset were determined. Models were adjusted for age, gender, level of education, stroke severity, previous history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and being alone at symptom onset. RESULTS: Patients arrived significantly later, if the patients themselves were the managers of the emergency situation [odds ratio (OR): 4.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-140.8]. Symptom knowledge and action knowledge were not found to be significantly associated with shorter pre-hospital times, whereas the correct diagnosis of stroke by the manager (OR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1-0.4) and calling the emergency medical system (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.7) independently led to a higher likelihood to arrive at a hospital within 2 hours. CONCLUSION: Our study underscores that good theoretical knowledge about stroke does not imply appropriate management in the emergency situation. Educational efforts need to incorporate more practical aspects in order to translate theoretical knowledge into concrete action.