Combining Intravenous Thrombolysis and Dual Antiplatelet Treatment in Patients With Minor Ischemic Stroke: A Propensity Matched Analysis of the READAPT Study Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for acute minor ischemic stroke is still undefined. and options include dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT), intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), or their combination. We aimed to investigate benefits and risks of combining IVT and DAPT versus DAPT alone in patients with MIS. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a prespecified propensity score-matched analysis from a prospective multicentric real-world study (READAPT [Real-Life Study on Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Treatment in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack]). We included patients with MIS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at admission ≤5), without prestroke disability (modified Rankin scale [mRS] score ≤2). The primary outcomes were 90-day mRS score of 0 to 2 and ordinal mRS distribution. The secondary outcomes included 90-day risk of stroke and other vascular events and 24-hour early neurological improvement or deterioration (≥2-point National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score decrease or increase from the baseline, respectively). From 1373 patients with MIS, 240 patients treated with IVT plus DAPT were matched with 427 patients treated with DAPT alone. At 90 days, IVT plus DAPT versus DAPT alone showed similar frequency of mRS 0 to 2 (risk difference, 2.3% [95% CI -2.0% to 6.7%]; P=0.295; risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI 0.98-1.08]; P=0.312) but more favorable ordinal mRS scores distribution (odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI 0.41-0.79]; P<0.001). Compared with patients treated with DAPT alone, those combining IVT and DAPT had higher 24-hour early neurological improvement (risk difference, 20.9% [95% CI 13.1%-28.6%]; risk ratio, 1.59 [95% CI 1.34-1.89]; both P<0.001) and lower 90-day risk of stroke and other vascular events (hazard ratio, 0.27 [95% CI 0.08-0.90]; P=0.034). There were no differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: According to findings from this observational study, patients with MIS may benefit in terms of better functional outcome and lower risk of recurrent events from combining IVT and DAPT versus DAPT alone without safety concerns. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05476081.

Beyond RCTs: Short-term dual antiplatelet therapy in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) proved the efficacy of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in secondary prevention of minor ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA). We aimed at evaluating effectiveness and safety of short-term DAPT in real-world, where treatment use is broader than in RCTs. METHODS: READAPT (REAl-life study on short-term Dual Antiplatelet treatment in Patients with ischemic stroke or Transient ischemic attack) (NCT05476081) was an observational multicenter real-world study with a 90-day follow-up. We included patients aged 18+ receiving short-term DAPT soon after ischemic stroke or TIA. No stringent NIHSS and ABCD2 score cut-offs were applied but adherence to guidelines was recommended. Primary effectiveness outcome was stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or death due to vascular causes, primary safety outcome was moderate-to-severe bleeding. Secondary outcomes were the type of ischemic and hemorrhagic events, disability, cause of death, and compliance to treatment. RESULTS: We included 1920 patients; 69.9% started DAPT after an ischemic stroke; only 8.9% strictly followed entry criteria or procedures of RCTs. Primary effectiveness outcome occurred in 3.9% and primary safety outcome in 0.6% of cases. In total, 3.3% cerebrovascular ischemic recurrences occurred, 0.2% intracerebral hemorrhages, and 2.7% bleedings; 0.2% of patients died due to vascular causes. Patients with NIHSS score ⩽5 and those without acute lesions at neuroimaging had significantly higher primary effectiveness outcomes than their counterparts. Additionally, DAPT start >24 h after symptom onset was associated with a lower likelihood of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world, most of the patients who receive DAPT after an ischemic stroke or a TIA do not follow RCTs entry criteria and procedures. Nevertheless, short-term DAPT remains effective and safe in this population. No safety concerns are raised in patients with low-risk TIA, more severe stroke, and delayed treatment start.

Prevention of infections and fever to improve outcome in older patients with acute stroke (PRECIOUS): a randomised, open, phase III, multifactorial, clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.

Background: Infections and fever after stroke are associated with poor functional outcome or death. We assessed whether prophylactic treatment with anti-emetic, antibiotic, or antipyretic medication would improve functional outcome in older patients with acute stroke. Methods: We conducted an international, 2∗2∗2-factorial, randomised, controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment in patients aged 66 years or older with acute ischaemic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage and a score on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ≥ 6. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to metoclopramide (oral, rectal, or intravenous; 10 mg thrice daily) vs. no metoclopramide, ceftriaxone (intravenous; 2000 mg once daily) vs. no ceftriaxone, and paracetamol (oral, rectal, or intravenous; 1000 mg four times daily) vs. no paracetamol, started within 24 h after symptom onset and continued for four days. All participants received standard of care. The target sample size was 3800 patients. The primary outcome was the score on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days analysed with ordinal logistic regression and reported as an adjusted common odds ratio (an acOR < 1 suggests benefit and an acOR > 1 harm). This trial is registered (ISRCTN82217627). Findings: From April 2016 through June 2022, 1493 patients from 67 European sites were randomised to metoclopramide (n = 704) or no metoclopramide (n = 709), ceftriaxone (n = 594) or no ceftriaxone (n = 482), and paracetamol (n = 706) or no paracetamol (n = 739), of whom 1471 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Prophylactic use of study medication did not significantly alter the primary outcome at 90 days: metoclopramide vs. no metoclopramide (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR], 1.01; 95% CI 0.81-1.25), ceftriaxone vs. no ceftriaxone (acOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.77-1.27), paracetamol vs. no paracetamol (acOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.96-1.47). The study drugs were safe and not associated with an increased incidence of serious adverse events. Interpretation: We observed no sign of benefit of prophylactic use of metoclopramide, ceftriaxone, or paracetamol during four days in older patients with a moderately severe to severe acute stroke. Funding: This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No: 634809.