Exploration of a Potential DOOR Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia Using Six Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach to clinical trial design and analysis that uses an ordinal ranking system to incorporate the overall risks and benefits of a therapeutic intervention into a single measurement. Here, we derived and evaluated a disease-specific DOOR endpoint for registrational trials for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: Through comprehensive examination of data from nearly 4,000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the FDA between 2005-2022, we derived and applied a HABP/VABP specific endpoint. We estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment arm would have a more favorable overall DOOR or component outcome than a participant assigned to comparator. RESULTS: DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 48.3% to 52.9% and were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the component analyses. Though infectious complications and serious adverse events occurred more frequently in ventilated participants compared to non-ventilated participants, the types of events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Through a data-driven approach, we constructed and applied a potential DOOR endpoint for HABP/VABP trials. The inclusion of syndrome-specific events may help to better delineate and evaluate participant experiences and outcomes in future HABP/VABP trials and could help inform data collection and trial design.

Moving Beyond Mortality: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) are frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials are needed to develop new antibiotics for HABP/VABP. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint customized for HABP/VABP, incorporating infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality. We applied this to 2 previously completed, large randomized controlled trials for HABP/VABP. ZEPHyR compared vancomycin to linezolid and VITAL compared linezolid to tedizolid. For each trial, we evaluated the DOOR distribution and probability, including DOOR component and partial credit analyses. We also applied DOOR in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: In both trials, the HABP/VABP DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment groups. In ZEPHyR, the probability that a participant treated with linezolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with vancomycin was 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.1%--55.3%). In VITAL, the probability that a participant treated with tedizolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with linezolid was 48.7% (95% CI, 44.8%-52.6%). The DOOR component analysis revealed that participants treated with tedizolid had a less desirable outcome than those treated with linezolid when considering clinical response alone. However, participants with decreased renal function had improved overall outcomes with tedizolid. CONCLUSIONS: The HABP/VABP DOOR provided more granular information about clinical outcomes than is typically presented in clinical trials. HABP/VABP trials would benefit from prospectively using DOOR.

Priorities and Progress in Gram-negative Bacterial Infection Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

Addressing the treatment and prevention of antibacterial-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections is a priority area of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). The ARLG has conducted a series of observational studies to define the clinical and molecular global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant and ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, with the goal of optimizing the design and execution of interventional studies. One ongoing ARLG study aims to better understand the impact of fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative gut bacteria in neutropenic patients, which threatens to undermine the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in these vulnerable patients. The ARLG has conducted pharmacokinetic studies to inform the optimal dosing of antibiotics that are important in the treatment of drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, including oral fosfomycin, intravenous minocycline, and a combination of intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam. In addition, randomized clinical trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of step-down oral fosfomycin for complicated urinary tract infections and single-dose intravenous phage therapy for adult patients with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with P. aeruginosa in their respiratory tract. Thus, the focus of investigation in the ARLG has evolved from improving understanding of drug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections to positively affecting clinical care for affected patients through a combination of interventional pharmacokinetic and clinical studies, a focus that will be maintained moving forward.

Priorities and Progress in Gram-positive Bacterial Infection Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group: A Narrative Review.

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) has prioritized infections caused by gram-positive bacteria as one of its core areas of emphasis. The ARLG Gram-positive Committee has focused on studies responding to 3 main identified research priorities: (1) investigation of strategies or therapies for infections predominantly caused by gram-positive bacteria, (2) evaluation of the efficacy of novel agents for infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and (3) optimization of dosing and duration of antimicrobial agents for gram-positive infections. Herein, we summarize ARLG accomplishments in gram-positive bacterial infection research, including studies aiming to (1) inform optimal vancomycin dosing, (2) determine the role of dalbavancin in MRSA bloodstream infection, (3) characterize enterococcal bloodstream infections, (4) demonstrate the benefits of short-course therapy for pediatric community-acquired pneumonia, (5) develop quality of life measures for use in clinical trials, and (6) advance understanding of the microbiome. Future studies will incorporate innovative methodologies with a focus on interventional clinical trials that have the potential to change clinical practice for difficult-to-treat infections, such as MRSA bloodstream infections.

Under the Hood: The Scientific Leadership, Clinical Operations, Statistical and Data Management, and Laboratory Centers of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

Developing and implementing the scientific agenda of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) by soliciting input and proposals, transforming concepts into clinical trials, conducting those trials, and translating trial data analyses into actionable information for infectious disease clinical practice is the collective role of the Scientific Leadership Center, Clinical Operations Center, Statistical and Data Management Center, and Laboratory Center of the ARLG. These activities include shepherding concept proposal applications through peer review; identifying, qualifying, training, and overseeing clinical trials sites; recommending, developing, performing, and evaluating laboratory assays in support of clinical trials; and designing and performing data collection and statistical analyses. This article describes key components involved in realizing the ARLG scientific agenda through the activities of the ARLG centers.

The Future Ain't What It Used to Be Out With the Old In With the Better: Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations.

Clinical research networks conduct important studies that would not otherwise be performed by other entities. In the case of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), such studies include diagnostic studies using master protocols, controlled phage intervention trials, and studies that evaluate treatment strategies or dynamic interventions, such as sequences of empiric and definitive therapies. However, the value of a clinical research network lies not only in the results from these important studies but in the creation of new approaches derived from collaborative thinking, carefully examining and defining the most important research questions for clinical practice, recognizing and addressing common but suboptimal approaches, and anticipating that the standard approaches of today may be insufficient for tomorrow. This results in the development and implementation of new methodologies and tools for the design, conduct, analyses, and reporting of research studies. These new methodologies directly impact the studies conducted within the network and have a broad and long-lasting impact on the field, enhancing the scientific value and efficiency of generations of research studies. This article describes innovations from the ARLG in diagnostic studies, observational studies, and clinical trials evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Exploration of a Potential Desirability of Outcome Ranking Endpoint for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections Using 9 Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a novel approach to clinical trial design that incorporates safety and efficacy assessments into an ordinal ranking system to evaluate overall outcomes of clinical trial participants. Here, we derived and applied a disease-specific DOOR endpoint to registrational trials for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI). METHODS: Initially, we applied an a priori DOOR prototype to electronic patient-level data from 9 phase 3 noninferiority trials for cIAI submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2005 and 2019. We derived a cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint based on clinically meaningful events that trial participants experienced. Next, we applied the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint to the same datasets and, for each trial, estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment would have a more desirable DOOR or component outcome than if assigned to the comparator. RESULTS: Three key findings informed the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint: (1) a significant proportion of participants underwent additional surgical procedures related to their baseline infection; (2) infectious complications of cIAI were diverse; and (3) participants with worse outcomes experienced more infectious complications, more serious adverse events, and underwent more procedures. DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 47.4% to 50.3% and were not significantly different. Component analyses depicted risk-benefit assessments of study treatment versus comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We designed and evaluated a potential DOOR endpoint for cIAI trials to further characterize overall clinical experiences of participants. Similar data-driven approaches can be utilized to create other infectious disease-specific DOOR endpoints.

Generalized fiducial inference for the restricted mean survival time.

The standard modeling approach for time-to-event outcomes subject to censoring is based on the hazard function, with hazard ratios capturing the effect of exposures on the risk of outcome. The restricted mean survival time, defined as the expected time to event up to a pre-specified time horizon, provides an alternative useful summary of time-to-event outcomes. Restricted mean survival time can be estimated nonparametrically and can be used to compare groups or interventions when the proportional hazards (PHs) assumption does not hold. Moreover, even when the proportional hazards assumption holds, the restricted mean survival time, an additive measure of risk, provides additional information to the hazard ratio, which is a measure of relative risk that can be difficult to interpret in absence of an estimate of the reference risk. Herein, a generalized fiducial approach is proposed for restricted mean survival time, and its asymptotic properties are investigated. Numerical simulations show the proposed approach provides one- and two-sided confidence intervals with coverage probabilities close to nominal values and controls the type-I error for two-group comparisons even for small sample sizes with a low number of events. Data from a type 1 diabetes study is used for illustration.

Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections associated with low procalcitonin: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infections are frequently treated with antibiotics, despite a viral cause in many cases. It remains unknown whether low procalcitonin concentrations can identify patients with lower respiratory tract infection who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections in patients with low procalcitonin. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at five health centres in the USA. Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically suspected non-pneumonia lower respiratory tract infection and symptom duration from 24 h to 28 days were eligible for enrolment. Participants with a procalcitonin concentration of 0·25 ng/mL or less were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four with stratification by site, to receive over-encapsulated oral azithromycin 250 mg or matching placebo (two capsules on day 1 followed by one capsule daily for 4 days). Participants, non-study clinical providers, investigators, and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was efficacy of azithromycin versus placebo in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin was -12·5%. Solicited adverse events (abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, allergic reaction, or yeast infections) were recorded as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03341273. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2017, and March 9, 2020, 691 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive azithromycin (n=249) or placebo (n=250). Clinical improvement at day 5 was observed in 148 (63%, 95% CI 54 to 71) of 238 participants with full data in the placebo group and 155 (69%, 61 to 77) of 227 participants with full data in the azithromycin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference -6%, 95% CI -15 to 2). The 95% CI for the difference did not meet the non-inferiority margin. Solicited adverse events and the severity of solicited adverse events were not significantly different between groups at day 5, except for increased abdominal pain associated with azithromycin (47 [23%, 95% CI 18 to 29] of 204 participants) compared with placebo (35 [16%, 12 to 21] of 221; between-group difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 0]; p=0·066). INTERPRETATION: Placebo was not non-inferior to azithromycin in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in adults with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. After accounting for both the rates of clinical improvement and solicited adverse events at day 5, it is unclear whether antibiotics are indicated for patients with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux.

Improving Traditional Registrational Trial End Points: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking End Point for Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Traditional end points used in registrational randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) often do not allow for complete interpretation of the full range of potential clinical outcomes. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an approach to the design and analysis of clinical trials that incorporates benefits and risks of novel treatment strategies and provides a global assessment of patient experience. METHODS: Through a multidisciplinary committee of experts in infectious diseases, clinical trial design, drug regulation, and patient experience, we developed a DOOR end point for infectious disease syndromes and demonstrated how this could be applied to 3 registrational drug trials (ZEUS, APEKS-cUTI, and DORI-05) for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). ZEUS compared fosfomycin to piperacillin/tazobactam, APEKS-cUTI compared cefiderocol to imipenem, and DORI-05 compared doripenem to levofloxacin. Using DOOR, we estimated the probability of a more desirable outcome with each investigational antibacterial drug. RESULTS: In each RCT, the DOOR distribution was similar and the probability that a patient in the investigational arm would have a more desirable outcome than a patient in the control arm had a 95% confidence interval containing 50%, indicating no significant difference between treatment arms. DOOR facilitated improved understanding of potential trade-offs between clinical efficacy and safety. Partial credit and subgroup analyses also highlight unique attributes of DOOR. CONCLUSIONS: DOOR can effectively be used in registrational cUTI trials. The DOOR end point presented here can be adapted for other infectious disease syndromes and prospectively incorporated into future clinical trials.

Safety and microbiological activity of phage therapy in persons with cystic fibrosis colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa: study protocol for a phase 1b/2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacteriophages (phages) are a promising anti-infective option for human disease. Major gaps remain in understanding their potential utility. METHODS: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of a single dose of intravenous phage in approximately 72 clinically stable adult cystic fibrosis volunteers recruited from up to 20 US sites with Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway colonization. The single dose of phage consists of a mixture of four anti-pseudomonal phages. Six sentinel participants will be sequentially enrolled with dose escalation of the phage mixture by one log10 beginning with 4 × 107 plaque-forming units in an unblinded stage 1. If no serious adverse events related to the study product are identified, the trial will proceed to a double-blinded stage 2. In stage 2a, 32 participants will be randomly assigned to one of three phage dosages or placebo in a 1:1:1:1 allocation. An interim analysis will be performed to determine the phage dosage with the most favorable safety and microbiological activity profile to inform phage dosing in stage 2b. During stage 2b, up to 32 additional volunteers will be randomized 1:1 to the phage or placebo arm. Primary outcomes include (1) the number of grade 2 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events, (2) change in log10 P. aeruginosa total colony counts in sputum, and (3) the probability of a randomly selected subject having a more favorable outcome ranking if assigned to receive phage therapy versus placebo. Exploratory outcomes include (1) sputum and serum phage pharmacokinetics, (2) the impact of phage on lung function, (3) the proportion of P. aeruginosa isolates susceptible to the phage mixture before and after study product administration, and (4) changes in quality of life. DISCUSSION: This trial will investigate the activity of phages in reducing P. aeruginosa colony counts and provide insights into the safety profile of phage therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05453578. Registered on 12 July 2022.

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection.

Background: Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome. Methods: We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previously completed, randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with uncomplicated GNB. We determined the probability that a randomly selected participant in the short course group would have a more desirable overall outcome than a participant in the conventional duration group. We performed (1) partial credit analyses allowing for calculated and variable weighting of DOOR ranks and (2) subgroup analyses to elucidate which patients may benefit the most from short durations of therapy. Results: For the 604 patients included in the original study (306 short course, 298 conventional course), the probability of having a more desirable outcome with a short course of antibiotics compared with a conventional course was 51.1% (95% confidence interval, 46.7% to 55.4%), indicating no significant difference. Partial credit analyses indicated that the DOOR results were similar across different patient preferences. Prespecified subgroup analyses using DOOR did not reveal significant differences between short and conventional courses of therapy. Conclusions: Both short and conventional durations of antibiotic therapy provide comparable clinical outcomes when using DOOR to consider benefits and risks of treatment options for GNB.

Dalbavancin as an option for treatment of S. aureus bacteremia (DOTS): study protocol for a phase 2b, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is a life-threatening infection and leading cause of infective endocarditis, with mortality rates of 15-50%. Treatment typically requires prolonged administration of parenteral therapy, itself associated with high costs and potential catheter-associated complications. Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with potent activity against Staphylococcus and a long half-life, making it an appealing potential therapy for S. aureus bacteremia without the need for durable central venous access. METHODS: DOTS is a phase 2b, multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded, superiority, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. The trial will enroll 200 adults diagnosed with complicated S. aureus bacteremia, including definite or possible right-sided infective endocarditis, who have been treated with effective antibiotic therapy for at least 72 h (maximum 10 days) and with subsequent clearance of bacteremia prior to randomization to study treatment. Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to complete their antibiotic treatment course with either two doses of dalbavancin on days 1 and 8, or with a total of 4-8 weeks of standard intravenous antibiotic therapy. The primary objective is to compare the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) at day 70 for patients randomized to dalbavancin versus standard of care. Key secondary endpoints include quality of life outcomes and pharmacokinetic analyses of dalbavancin. DISCUSSION: The DOTS trial will establish whether dalbavancin is superior to standard parenteral antibiotic therapy for the completion of treatment of complicated S. aureus bacteremia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04775953 . Registered on 1 March 2021.

Early initiation of rivaroxaban after reperfusion therapy for stroke patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of initiating oral anticoagulants after reperfusion therapy for ischemic stroke is unknown. Factors related to early initiation of rivaroxaban and differences in clinical outcomes of stroke patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who underwent reperfusion therapy was investigated. METHODS: From data of 1,333 NVAF patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in a prospective multicenter study, patients who started rivaroxaban after intravenous thrombolysis and/or mechanical thrombectomy were included. The clinical outcomes included the composite of ischemic events (recurrent ischemic stroke, TIA, or systemic embolism) and major bleeding at 3 months. RESULTS: Among the 424 patients, the median time from index stroke to starting rivaroxaban was 3.2 days. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, infarct size (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95%CI, 0.99-1.00) was inversely and successful reperfusion (OR, 2.13; 95%CI, 1.24-3.72) was positively associated with initiation of rivaroxaban within 72 hours. 205 patients were assigned to the early group (< 72 hours) and 219 patients (≥ 72 hours) to the late group. Multivariable Cox regression models showed comparable hazard ratios between the two groups at 3 months for ischemic events (hazard ratio [HR], 0.18; 95%CI, 0.03-1.32) and major bleeding (HR, 1.80; 95%CI, 0.24-13.54). CONCLUSIONS: Infarct size and results of reperfusion therapy were associated with the timing of starting rivaroxaban. There were no significant differences in the rates of ischemic events and major bleeding between patients after reperfusion therapy who started rivaroxaban < 72 hours and ≥ 72 hours after the index stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifier: NCT02129920; URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

[Multiple Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials].

Like most complex(or multifactorial)diseases, cancer results not from a single factor, but rather from the interaction of multiple genes and environmental factors. Thus patients can experience different signs and symptoms that reflect more than one consequence of suffering the disease. When evaluating the effects of new treatments in cancer clinical trials, the multidimensional assessment using multiple outcomes to measure improvements in the patients' signs and symptoms associated with treatments would be preferred. Most cancer clinical trials use more than one clinical outcome as multiple primary, or primary and(key)secondary endpoints, such as overall survival, endpoints based on tumor assessments(e.g., disease-free survival, event-free survival, objective response rate, time to progression, progression-free survival), and endpoints involving symptom assessment. Utilizing multiple endpoints may provide the opportunity for characterizing the intervention's multidimensional effects, but also creates challenges, specifically controlling the Type Ⅰ and/or Type Ⅱ errors in hypotheses testing and trial designs associated with multiple endpoints. In this article, we review issues in design, monitoring, analysis and reporting of clinical trials with multiple endpoints, with illustrating examples in oncology disease settings. We outline several methods for controlling the Type Ⅰ error associated multiple tests, which have been commonly used in clinical trials. We also briefly discuss issues in interim analyses and group sequential designs for clinical trials with multiple endpoints.

[What Is an Estimand?-The Most Important Clinical Question in Oncology Trials].

Patients can experience different disease journeys and clinical trials that investigate the benefit of oncology treatments need to account for this diversity. When defining the treatment effect of interest in a trial, researchers thus have to account for events occurring after treatment initiation, such as the start of a new therapy, before observing the variable of interest. We review the estimand framework recently introduced by the International Council for Harmonisation(ICH, 2019)to structure discussions on the relationship between patient journeys and the treatment effect of interest in oncology trials. This framework is expected to improve coherence between trial objectives, design, analysis, reporting and interpretation, as illustrated in this article by examples in oncology disease settings.

Bridging Therapy With Heparin Before Starting Rivaroxaban in Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The present observational study aimed to clarify the association between bridging therapy with heparin before starting rivaroxaban and clinical outcomes after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).Methods and Results: Patients with NVAF who experienced acute ischemic stroke or TIA of the middle cerebral artery territory and started rivaroxaban within 30 days after onset were enrolled and were followed up for 90 days. Outcome measures were ischemic events, major bleeding, their composite, and death or disability 90 days after onset. Ischemic events were defined as ischemic stroke, TIA, and systemic embolism. Of 1,308 analyzed patients, 638 received bridging therapy with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin with a median of 10,000 IU/day. Associations between bridging therapy and ischemic events or major bleeding were not statistically significant individually, but the association between bridging therapy and their composite was statistically significant (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.29). The association between bridging therapy and death or disability 90 days after onset was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The composite of ischemic events and major bleeding was more frequent in patients with NVAF who received bridging therapy with low-dose heparin than in those who started treatment directly with rivaroxaban after ischemic stroke or TIA.

ASPECTS-Region-Dependent Functional Outcomes after Endovascular Therapy in Patients with Cardioembolic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Cardioembolic stroke has a poor prognosis. We evaluated the region-dependent efficacy of endovascular therapy (EVT) based on diffusion-weighted imaging-Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (DWI-ASPECTS). METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of the RELAXED study, which investigated the optimal timing of rivaroxaban to prevent nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) recurrence in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS), included NVAF patients admitted with AIS or transient ischemic attack in the middle cerebral artery (MCA), with internal carotid artery (ICA), M1, or M2-MCA occlusion. Relationships between DWI-ASPECTS region and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS]), mortality, recurrence, and hemorrhagic stroke were compared between patients with and without EVT, and adjusted odds ratios for age, pre-stroke mRS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), ICA occlusion, infarct size, recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) use, and onset-to-hospitalization time were estimated. RESULTS: EVT patients had significantly lower hemoglobin levels, higher median NIHSS scores, more lentiform nucleus infarcts, ICA or M1-MCA occlusions, treatment with rt-PA, and fewer M3, M5, or M6 infarcts and M2-MCA occlusions than no-EVT patients. EVT patients had shorter onset-to-hospitalization times and more frequent favorable functional outcomes (p=0.007). Mortality, recurrent ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic infarction were similar in both groups. EVT was associated with significantly better functional outcomes among patients with insular ribbon (p=0.043) and M3 (p=0.0008) infarcts. M3 patients had significantly fewer rt-PA and EVT, and longer onset-to-hospitalization times. CONCLUSIONS: An occlusion in the insular ribbon or M3 region was associated with favorable functional outcomes in patients treated with EVT after cardioembolic stroke.

Sex Differences in Management and Outcomes of Cardioembolic Stroke: Post HOC Analyses of the RELAXED Study.

INTRODUCTION: Experimental models have clearly demonstrated sex differences in the pathophysiology of stroke and prognosis, however clinical evidence remains elusive. In this study, we examined sex differences as a post hoc analysis of RELAXED (Recurrent Embolism Lessened by rivaroxaban, an anti-X agent, of Early Dosing for acute IS and TIA with atrial fibrillation) Study. METHODS: We stratified study participants by sex and compared baseline and clinical characteristics as well as clinical outcomes. The primary outcome measure was a good outcome defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days after stroke. Secondary outcomes were mortality at 90 days, intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days, and recurrence of stroke or transient ischemic attack within 90 days. We constructed a logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of female patients compared with male patients for the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1303 patients, most were male (57.7%) with a mean age of 74.5 years. Female patients were older with a mean age of 80.6 ± 8.9 years and had significantly less frequent anticoagulation therapy before onset of stroke and more severe NIHSS scores. Good outcome was observed in 51.2% and 63.3% of the females and males (p < 0.0001). The adjusted odds ratio of a good outcome in females was 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.44-2.87) (p = 0.81). There were no sex differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adjusted regression analysis found no sex difference in the treatment outcomes at 90 days after stroke with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.