Microbleeds and the Effect of Anticoagulation in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: An Exploratory Analysis of the NAVIGATE ESUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The reported associations of cerebral microbleeds with recurrent stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage have raised concerns regarding antithrombotic treatment in patients with a history of stroke and microbleeds on magnetic resonance imaging. Objective: To characterize microbleeds in embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS) and report interactions between microbleeds and the effects of random assignment to anticoagulant vs antiplatelet therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Subgroup analyses of the New Approach Rivaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global Trial vs Aspirin to Prevent Embolism in ESUS (NAVIGATE ESUS) international, double-blind, randomized, event-driven phase 3 clinical trial. Participants were enrolled between December 2014 and September 2017 and followed up for a median of 11 months. The study setting included 459 stroke recruitment centers in 31 countries. Patients aged 50 years or older who had neuroimaging-confirmed ESUS between 7 days and 6 months before screening were eligible. Of these 7213 NAVIGATE ESUS participants, 3699 (51%) had information on cerebral microbleeds reported on their baseline clinical magnetic resonance imaging and were eligible for these analyses. Patients with a prior history of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were excluded from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Interventions: Rivaroxaban, 15 mg, compared with aspirin, 100 mg, daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality. Results: Microbleeds were present in 395 of 3699 participants (11%). Of patients with cerebral microbleeds, mean (SD) age was 69.5 (9.4) years, 241 were men (61%), and 201 were White (51%). Advancing age (odds ratio [OR] per year, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), East Asian race/ethnicity (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.37), hypertension (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.54-3.15), multiterritorial infarcts (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.42-2.67), chronic infarcts (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.42-2.23), and occult intracerebral hemorrhage (OR, 5.23; 95% CI, 2.76-9.90) were independently associated with microbleeds. The presence of microbleeds was associated with a 1.5-fold increased risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.3), a 4-fold risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-13.9), a 2-fold risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.3), and strictly lobar microbleeds with an approximately 2.5-fold risk of ischemic stroke (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.3). There were no interactions between microbleeds and treatment assignments for recurrent stroke, ischemic stroke, or all-cause mortality. The HR of intracerebral hemorrhage on rivaroxaban was similar between persons with microbleeds (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.3-30.0) and persons without microbleeds (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 0.6-14.7; interaction P = .97). Conclusions and Relevance: Microbleeds mark an increased risk of recurrent stroke, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and mortality in ESUS but do not appear to influence effects of rivaroxaban on clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02313909.

Recurrent Stroke With Rivaroxaban Compared With Aspirin According to Predictors of Atrial Fibrillation: Secondary Analysis of the NAVIGATE ESUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The NAVIGATE ESUS randomized clinical trial found that 15 mg of rivaroxaban per day does not reduce stroke compared with aspirin in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS); however, it substantially reduces stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective: To analyze whether rivaroxaban is associated with a reduction of recurrent stroke among patients with ESUS who have an increased risk of AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants were stratified by predictors of AF, including left atrial diameter, frequency of premature atrial contractions, and HAVOC score, a validated scheme using clinical features. Treatment interactions with these predictors were assessed. Participants were enrolled between December 2014 and September 2017, and analysis began March 2018. Intervention: Rivaroxaban treatment vs aspirin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of ischemic stroke. Results: Among 7112 patients with a mean (SD) age of 67 (9.8) years, the mean (SD) HAVOC score was 2.6 (1.8), the mean (SD) left atrial diameter was 3.8 (1.4) cm (n = 4022), and the median (interquartile range) daily frequency of premature atrial contractions was 48 (13-222). Detection of AF during follow-up increased for each tertile of HAVOC score: 2.3% (score, 0-2), 3.0% (score, 3), and 5.8% (score, >3); however, neither tertiles of the HAVOC score nor premature atrial contractions frequency impacted the association of rivaroxaban with recurrent ischemic stroke (P for interaction = .67 and .96, respectively). Atrial fibrillation annual incidence increased for each tertile of left atrial diameter (2.0%, 3.6%, and 5.2%) and for each tertile of premature atrial contractions frequency (1.3%, 2.9%, and 7.0%). Among the predefined subgroup of patients with a left atrial diameter of more than 4.6 cm (9% of overall population), the risk of ischemic stroke was lower among the rivaroxaban group (1.7% per year) compared with the aspirin group (6.5% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.94; P for interaction = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: The HAVOC score, left atrial diameter, and premature atrial contraction frequency predicted subsequent clinical AF. Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke among patients with ESUS and moderate or severe left atrial enlargement; however, this needs to be independently confirmed before influencing clinical practice.

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial.

BACKGROUND: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. METHODS: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22-1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84-1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51-8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69-4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24-0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. FUNDING: Bayer and Janssen.

Epidural Electrical Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blinded Everest Trial.

BACKGROUND: This prospective, single-blinded, multicenter study assessed the safety and efficacy of electrical epidural motor cortex stimulation (EECS) in improving upper limb motor function of ischemic stroke patients with moderate to moderately severe hemiparesis. METHODS: Patients ≥ 4 months poststroke were randomized 2:1 to an investigational (n = 104) or control (n = 60) group, respectively. Investigational patients were implanted (n = 94) with an epidural 6-contact lead perpendicular to the primary motor cortex and a pulse generator. Both groups underwent 6 weeks of rehabilitation, but EECS was delivered to investigational patients during rehabilitation. The primary efficacy endpoint (PE) was defined as attaining a minimum improvement of 4.5 points in the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) scale as well as 0.21 points in the Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT) 4 weeks postrehabilitation. Follow-up assessments were performed 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events (AEs) that occurred between enrollment and the end of rehabilitation. RESULTS: Primary intent-to-treat analysis showed no group differences at 4 weeks, with PE being met by 32% and 29% of investigational and control patients, respectively (P = .36). Repeated-measures secondary analyses revealed no significant treatment group differences in mean UEFM or AMAT scores. However, post hoc comparisons showed that a greater proportion of investigational (39%) than control (15%) patients maintained or achieved PE (P = .003) at 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Investigational group mean AMAT scores also improved significantly (P < .05) when compared to the control group at 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Post hoc analyses also showed that 69% (n = 9/13) of the investigational patients who elicited movement thresholds during stimulation testing met PE at 4 weeks, and mean UEFM and AMAT scores was also significantly higher (P < .05) in this subgroup at the 4-, 12-, and 24-week assessments when compared to the control group. Headache (19%), pain (13%), swelling (7%), and infection (7%) were the most commonly observed implant procedure-related AEs. Overall, there were 11 serious AEs in 9 investigational group patients (7 procedure related, 4 anesthesia related). CONCLUSIONS: The primary analysis pertaining to efficacy of EECS during upper limb motor rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients was negative at 4 weeks postrehabilitation. A better treatment response was observed in a subset of patients eliciting stimulation induced upper limb movements during motor threshold assessments performed prior to each rehabilitation session. Post hoc comparisons indicated treatment effect differences at 24 weeks, with the control group showing significant decline in the combined primary outcome measure relative to the investigational group. These results have the potential to inform future chronic stroke rehabilitation trial design.

Long-Term Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Peroneal Nerve Functional Electrical Stimulation to an Ankle Foot Orthosis for Patients With Chronic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few long-term, randomized controlled comparisons exist. OBJECTIVE: Compare changes in gait quality and function between FES and AFOs in individuals with foot drop poststroke over a 12-month period. METHODS: Follow-up analysis of an unblinded randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) conducted at 30 rehabilitation centers comparing FES to AFOs over 6 months. Subjects continued to wear their randomized device for another 6 months to final 12-month assessments. Subjects used study devices for all home and community ambulation. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were utilized; primary endpoints were tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints for superiority. Primary endpoints: 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT) and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile, and Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP). RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were randomized, and 384 completed the 12-month follow-up. FES proved noninferior to AFOs for all primary endpoints. Both FES and AFO groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvement for 10MWT compared with initial measurement. No statistically significant between-group differences were found for primary or secondary endpoints. The FES group demonstrated statistically significant improvements for 6MWT and mEFAP Stair-time subscore. CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, both FES and AFOs continue to demonstrate equivalent gains in gait speed. Results suggest that long-term FES use may lead to additional improvements in walking endurance and functional ambulation; further research is needed to confirm these findings.

The effects of peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation versus ankle-foot orthosis in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle-foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few randomized controlled comparisons exist. OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in gait and quality of life (QoL) between FES and an AFO in individuals with foot drop poststroke. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) with unblinded outcome assessments, 495 Medicare-eligible individuals at least 6 months poststroke wore FES or an AFO for 6 months. Primary endpoints: 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), a composite of the Mobility, Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and Social Participation subscores on the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test, GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile (FAP), Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go, individual SIS domains, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life measures. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were used with primary endpoints tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints tested for superiority. RESULTS: A total of 399 subjects completed the study. FES proved noninferior to the AFO for all primary endpoints. Both the FES and AFO groups improved significantly on the 10MWT. Within the FES group, significant improvements were found for SIS composite score, total mFEAP score, individual Floor and Obstacle course time scores of the mEFAP, FAP, and BBS, but again, no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FES is equivalent to the AFO. Further studies should examine whether FES enables better performance in tasks involving functional mobility, activities of daily living, and balance.

Repinotan, A 5-HT1A agonist, in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Serotonin agonists can reduce glutamate-induced excitotoxicity in cerebral ischemia. The potent 5-HT1A agonist BAY x 3702, or repinotan, has reduced cortical infarct volume in pre-clinical models even when given 5 hours after injury. Early clinical trials showed that the drug was safe, and displayed primarily serotonergic side effects such as nausea and vomiting. A phase IIb trial in moderate to moderately severe strokes completed enrollment in June 2004.

Motor cortex stimulation for enhancement of recovery after stroke: case report.

We present a case report of a 65-year-old patient who had a subcortical infarct and a right spastic hemiparesis that occurred 19 months before being treated with an investigational therapy consisting of low frequency subthreshold epidural motor cortex electrical stimulation delivered during structured occupational therapy repeated daily for three weeks. Before treatment the patient's affected arm rested in a flexion posture and he was unable to flex or extend the fingers. After three weeks of treatment, the resting tone of his arm had improved and he was able to grasp a pen and write letters. The Fugl-Meyer motor scale score improved from 36 to 46 and this improvement was sustained for four weeks after the conclusion of rehabilitation therapy. This is the first patient to be entered into a randomized clinical feasibility and safety study assessing functional improvement in stroke patients treated with epidural cortical stimulation concurrent with occupational therapy (an investigational therapy).

Repinotan Bayer.

Bayer is developing the aminomethylchroman derivative, repinotan, a 5-HT1A agonist, as a potential treatment for ischemic stroke and traumatic brain injury [216172]. It has completed phase III trials in Canada and the US [342562], [344747]. In June 2001, NDA filing was expected by 2004 [411649]. As of March 2002, it was undergoing phase III trials for both indications, and Bayer expected to launch the product in 2006 in Europe and the US [443846]. Repinotan was being developed initially as an i.v. formulation for the treatment of ischemic stroke and brain injury and as an oral formulation for the treatment of depression; however, development has been discontinued for the latter indication [317452]. In March 2002, Lehman Brothers predicted a launch date of 2006, estimating peak sales of US $1000 million and a 20 to 30% probability of reaching market [450456], while in April 2002, Bank Vontobel also predicted a launch in 2006 with potential sales of Euro450 million in its fifth year of sales [450454]. Bayer predicts peak sales of Euro450 million [397137].