Adjunctive Intravenous Argatroban or Eptifibatide for Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis is a standard treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The efficacy and safety of combining intravenous thrombolysis with argatroban (an anticoagulant agent) or eptifibatide (an antiplatelet agent) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, three-group, adaptive, single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial at 57 sites in the United States. Patients with acute ischemic stroke who had received intravenous thrombolysis within 3 hours after symptom onset were assigned to receive intravenous argatroban, eptifibatide, or placebo within 75 minutes after the initiation of thrombolysis. The primary efficacy outcome, the utility-weighted 90-day modified Rankin scale score (range, 0 to 10, with higher scores reflecting better outcomes), was assessed by means of centralized adjudication. The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 514 patients were assigned to receive argatroban (59 patients), eptifibatide (227 patients), or placebo (228 patients). All the patients received intravenous thrombolysis (70% received alteplase, and 30% received tenecteplase), and 225 patients (44%) underwent endovascular thrombectomy. At 90 days, the mean (±SD) utility-weighted modified Rankin scale scores were 5.2±3.7 with argatroban, 6.3±3.2 with eptifibatide, and 6.8±3.0 with placebo. The posterior probability that argatroban was better than placebo was 0.002 (posterior mean difference in utility-weighted modified Rankin scale score, -1.51±0.51) and that eptifibatide was better than placebo was 0.041 (posterior mean difference, -0.50±0.29). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was similar in the three groups (4% with argatroban, 3% with eptifibatide, and 2% with placebo). Mortality at 90 days was higher in the argatroban group (24%) and the eptifibatide group (12%) than in the placebo group (8%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis within 3 hours after symptom onset, adjunctive treatment with intravenous argatroban or eptifibatide did not reduce poststroke disability and was associated with increased mortality. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; MOST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03735979.).

Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Trials: Cutting, Sliding, or Keeping mRS Scores and WFNS Grades.

Rigorous evidence generation with randomized controlled trials has lagged for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) compared with other forms of acute stroke. Besides its lower incidence compared with other stroke subtypes, the presentation and outcome of patients with SAH also differ. This must be considered and adjusted for in designing pivotal randomized controlled trials of patients with SAH. Here, we show the effect of the unique expected distribution of the SAH severity at presentation (World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade) on the outcome most used in pivotal stroke randomized controlled trials (modified Rankin Scale) and, consequently, on the sample size. Furthermore, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different options to analyze the outcome and control the expected distribution of the World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grades in addition to showing their effects on the sample size. Finally, we offer methods that investigators can adapt to more precisely understand the effect of common modified Rankin Scale analysis methods and trial eligibility pertaining to the World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade in designing their large-scale SAH randomized controlled trials.

Addressing the Evidence Gap in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Need for a Pragmatic Randomized Trial Platform.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) occurs less often than other stroke types but affects younger patients, imposing a disproportionately high burden of long-term disability. Although management advances have improved outcomes over time, relatively few aSAH treatments have been tested in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). One lesson learned from COVID-19 is that trial platforms can facilitate the efficient execution of multicenter RCTs even in complex diseases during challenging conditions. An aSAH trial platform with standardized eligibility criteria, randomization procedures, and end point definitions would enable the study of multiple targeted interventions in a perpetual manner, with treatments entering and leaving the platform based on predefined decision algorithms. An umbrella institutional review board protocol and clinical trial agreement would allow individual arms to be efficiently added as amendments rather than stand-alone protocols. Standardized case report forms using the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke common data elements and general protocol standardization across arms would create synergies for data management and monitoring. A Bayesian analysis framework would emphasize frequent interim looks to enable early termination of trial arms for futility, common controls, borrowing of information across arms, and adaptive designs. A protocol development committee would assist investigators and encourage pragmatic designs to maximize generalizability, reduce site burden, and execute trials efficiently and cost-effectively. Despite decades of steady clinical progress in the management of aSAH, poor patient outcomes remain common, and despite the increasing availability of RCT data in other fields, it remains difficult to perform RCTs to guide more effective care for aSAH. The development of a platform for pragmatic RCTs in aSAH would help close the evidence gap between aSAH and other stroke types and improve outcomes for this important disease with its disproportionate public health burden.

Bayesian hierarchical profile regression for binary covariates.

Dysphagia, a common result of other medical conditions, is caused by malfunctions in swallowing physiology resulting in difficulty eating and drinking. The Modified Barium Swallow Study (MBSS), the most commonly used diagnostic tool for evaluating dysphagia, can be assessed using the Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile (MBSImP™). The MBSImP assessment tool consists of a hierarchical grouped data structure with multiple domains, a set of components within each domain which characterize specific swallowing physiologies, and a set of tasks scored on a discrete scale within each component. We lack sophisticated approaches to extract patterns of physiologic swallowing impairment from the MBSImP task scores within a component while still recognizing the nested structure of components within a domain. We propose a Bayesian hierarchical profile regression model, which uses a Bayesian profile regression model in conjunction with a hierarchical Dirichlet process mixture model to (1) cluster subjects into impairment profile patterns while respecting the hierarchical grouped data structure of the MBSImP, and (2) simultaneously determine associations between latent profile cluster membership for all components and the outcome of dysphagia severity. We apply our approach to a cohort of patients referred for an MBSS and assessed using the MBSImP. Our research results can be used to inform appropriate intervention strategies, and provide tools for clinicians to make better multidimensional management and treatment decisions for patients with dysphagia.

Recruitment in Acute Stroke Trials: Challenges and Potential Solutions.

Randomized clinical trials of acute stroke have led to major advances in acute stroke therapy over the past decade. Despite these successes, recruitment in acute trials is often difficult. We outline challenges in recruitment for acute stroke trials and present potential solutions, which can increase the speed and decrease the cost of identifying new treatments for acute stroke. One of the largest opportunities to increase the speed of enrollment and make trials more generalizable is expansion of inclusion criteria whose impact on expected recruitment can be assessed by epidemiologic and registry databases. Another barrier to recruitment besides the number of eligible patients is availability of study investigators limited to business hours, which may be helped by financial support for after-hours call. The wider use of telemedicine has accelerated quicker stroke treatment at many hospitals and has the potential to accelerate research enrollment but requires training of clinical investigators who are often inexperienced with this approach. Other potential solutions to enhance recruitment include rapid prehospital notification of clinical investigators of potential patients, use of mobile stroke units, advances in the process of emergency informed consent, storage of study medication in the emergency department, simplification of study treatments and data collection, education of physicians to improve equipoise and enthusiasm for randomization of patients within a trial, and clear recruitment plans, and even potentially coenrollment, when there are competing trials at sites. Without successful recruitment, scientific advances and clinical benefit for acute stroke patients will lag.

Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation in Subacute Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising adjunct to therapy for chronic aphasia. METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled efficacy trial tested the hypothesis that anodal tDCS augments language therapy in subacute aphasia. Secondarily, we compared the effect of tDCS on discourse measures and quality of life and compared the effects on naming to previous findings in chronic stroke. Right-handed English speakers with aphasia <3 months after left hemisphere ischemic stroke were included, unless they had prior neurological or psychiatric disease or injury or were taking certain medications (34 excluded; final sample, 58). Participants were randomized 1:1, controlling for age, aphasia type, and severity, to receive 20 minutes of tDCS (1 mA) or sham-tDCS in addition to fifteen 45-minute sessions of naming treatment (plus standard care). The primary outcome variable was change in naming accuracy of untrained pictures pretreatment to 1-week posttreatment. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the tDCS (N=30) and sham (N=28) groups: patients were 65 years old, 53% male, and 2 months from stroke onset on average. In intent-to-treat analysis, the adjusted mean change from baseline to 1-week posttreatment in picture naming was 22.3 (95% CI, 13.5-31.2) for tDCS and 18.5 (9.6-27.4) for sham and was not significantly different. Content and efficiency of picture description improved more with tDCS than sham. Groups did not differ in quality of life improvement. No patients were withdrawn due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: tDCS did not improve recovery of picture naming but did improve recovery of discourse. Discourse skills are critical to participation. Future research should examine tDCS in a larger sample with richer functional outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02674490.

Optimal Randomization Designs for Large Multicenter Clinical Trials: From the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network Funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Experience.

From 2016 to 2021, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke initiated ten multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials. Optimal subject randomization designs are demanded with 4 critical properties: (1) protection of treatment assignment randomness, (2) achievement of the desired treatment allocation ratio, (3) balancing of baseline covariates, and (4) ease of implementation. For acute stroke trials, it is necessary to minimize the time between eligibility assessment and treatment initiation. This article reviews the randomization designs for 3 trials currently enrolling in Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the SATURN (Statins in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Trial), the MOST (Multiarm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis Trial), and the FASTEST (Recombinant Factor VIIa for Hemorrhagic Stroke Trial). Randomization methods utilized in these trials include minimal sufficient balance, block urn design, big stick design, and step-forward randomization. Their advantages and limitations are reviewed and compared with traditional stratified permuted block design and minimization.

Why ketamine.

We present the rationale for testing ketamine as an add-on therapy for treating benzodiazepine refractory (established) status epilepticus. In animal studies, ketamine terminates benzodiazepine refractory status epilepticus by interfering with the pathophysiological mechanisms and is a neuroprotectant. Ketamine does not suppress respiration when used for sedation and anesthesia. A Series of reports suggest that ketamine can help terminate refractory and super refractory status epilepticus. We propose to use 1 or 3 mg/Kg ketamine intravenously based on animal-to-human conversion and pharmacokinetic studies. This paper was presented at the 8th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures held in September 2022.

Randomized Trial of Three Anticonvulsant Medications for Status Epilepticus.

BACKGROUND: The choice of drugs for patients with status epilepticus that is refractory to treatment with benzodiazepines has not been thoroughly studied. METHODS: In a randomized, blinded, adaptive trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of three intravenous anticonvulsive agents - levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate - in children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus that was unresponsive to treatment with benzodiazepines. The primary outcome was absence of clinically evident seizures and improvement in the level of consciousness by 60 minutes after the start of drug infusion, without additional anticonvulsant medication. The posterior probabilities that each drug was the most or least effective were calculated. Safety outcomes included life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, seizure recurrence, and death. RESULTS: A total of 384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive levetiracetam (145 patients), fosphenytoin (118), or valproate (121). Reenrollment of patients with a second episode of status epilepticus accounted for 16 additional instances of randomization. In accordance with a prespecified stopping rule for futility of finding one drug to be superior or inferior, a planned interim analysis led to the trial being stopped. Of the enrolled patients, 10% were determined to have had psychogenic seizures. The primary outcome of cessation of status epilepticus and improvement in the level of consciousness at 60 minutes occurred in 68 patients assigned to levetiracetam (47%; 95% credible interval, 39 to 55), 53 patients assigned to fosphenytoin (45%; 95% credible interval, 36 to 54), and 56 patients assigned to valproate (46%; 95% credible interval, 38 to 55). The posterior probability that each drug was the most effective was 0.41, 0.24, and 0.35, respectively. Numerically more episodes of hypotension and intubation occurred in the fosphenytoin group and more deaths occurred in the levetiracetam group than in the other groups, but these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive status epilepticus, the anticonvulsant drugs levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate each led to seizure cessation and improved alertness by 60 minutes in approximately half the patients, and the three drugs were associated with similar incidences of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01960075.).

Cilostazol for Secondary Stroke Prevention: History, Evidence, Limitations, and Possibilities.

Cilostazol is a PDE3 (phosphodiesterase III) inhibitor with a long track record of safety that is Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved for the treatment of claudication in patients with peripheral arterial disease. In addition, cilostazol has been approved for secondary stroke prevention in several Asian countries based on trials that have demonstrated a reduction in stroke recurrence among patients with noncardioembolic stroke. The onset of benefit appears after 60 to 90 days of treatment, which is consistent with cilostazol's pleiotropic effects on platelet aggregation, vascular remodeling, blood flow, and plasma lipids. Cilostazol appears safe and does not increase the risk of major bleeding when given alone or in combination with aspirin or clopidogrel. Adverse effects such as headache, gastrointestinal symptoms, and palpitations, however, contributed to a 6% increase in drug discontinuation among patients randomized to cilostazol in a large secondary stroke prevention trial (CSPS.com [Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study for Antiplatelet Combination]). Due to limitations of prior trials, such as open-label design, premature trial termination, large loss to follow-up, lack of functional or cognitive outcome data, and exclusive enrollment in Asia, the existing trials have not led to a change in clinical practice or guidelines in Western countries. These limitations could be addressed by a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in a broader population. If positive, it would increase the evidence in support of long-term treatment with cilostazol for secondary prevention in the millions of patients worldwide who have experienced a noncardioembolic ischemic stroke.

Efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate for established status epilepticus by age group (ESETT): a double-blind, responsive-adaptive, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075. FINDINGS: Between Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group. INTERPRETATION: Children, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.

Clopidogrel and Aspirin in Acute Ischemic Stroke and High-Risk TIA.

BACKGROUND: Combination antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin may reduce the rate of recurrent stroke during the first 3 months after a minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). A trial of combination antiplatelet therapy in a Chinese population has shown a reduction in the risk of recurrent stroke. We tested this combination in an international population. METHODS: In a randomized trial, we assigned patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA to receive either clopidogrel at a loading dose of 600 mg on day 1, followed by 75 mg per day, plus aspirin (at a dose of 50 to 325 mg per day) or the same range of doses of aspirin alone. The dose of aspirin in each group was selected by the site investigator. The primary efficacy outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the risk of a composite of major ischemic events, which was defined as ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from an ischemic vascular event, at 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 4881 patients were enrolled at 269 international sites. The trial was halted after 84% of the anticipated number of patients had been enrolled because the data and safety monitoring board had determined that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was associated with both a lower risk of major ischemic events and a higher risk of major hemorrhage than aspirin alone at 90 days. Major ischemic events occurred in 121 of 2432 patients (5.0%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and in 160 of 2449 patients (6.5%) receiving aspirin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.95; P=0.02), with most events occurring during the first week after the initial event. Major hemorrhage occurred in 23 patients (0.9%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and in 10 patients (0.4%) receiving aspirin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.87; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, those who received a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin had a lower risk of major ischemic events but a higher risk of major hemorrhage at 90 days than those who received aspirin alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; POINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00991029 .).

Patterns of benzodiazepine underdosing in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to describe patterns of benzodiazepine use as first-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and test the association of benzodiazepine doses with response to second-line agents in patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT). METHODS: Patients refractory to an adequate dose of benzodiazepines for the treatment of SE were enrolled in ESETT. Choice of benzodiazepine, doses given prior to administration of second-line agent, route of administration, setting, and patient weight were characterized. These were compared with guideline-recommended dosing. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of the first dose of benzodiazepine and the cumulative benzodiazepine dose with the response to second-line agent. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty patients were administered 1170 doses of benzodiazepines (669 lorazepam, 398 midazolam, 103 diazepam). Lorazepam was most frequently administered intravenously in the emergency department, midazolam intramuscularly or intravenously by the emergency medical services personnel, and diazepam rectally prior to ambulance arrival. The first dose of the first benzodiazepine (N = 460) was lower than guideline recommendations in 76% of midazolam administrations and 81% of lorazepam administrations. Among all administrations, >85% of midazolam and >76% of lorazepam administrations were lower than recommended. Higher first or cumulative benzodiazepine doses were not associated with better outcomes or clinical seizure cessation in response to second-line medications in these benzodiazepine-refractory seizures. SIGNIFICANCE: Benzodiazepines as first-line treatment of SE, particularly midazolam and lorazepam, are frequently underdosed throughout the United States. This broad and generalizable cohort confirms prior single site reports that underdosing is both pervasive and difficult to remediate. (ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01960075.).

Time Course for Benefit and Risk of Clopidogrel and Aspirin After Acute Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack enrolled in the POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke [POINT] Trial), the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin for 90 days reduced major ischemic events but increased major hemorrhage in comparison to aspirin alone. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of POINT (N=4881), we assessed the time course for benefit and risk from the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemic vascular death. The primary safety outcome was major hemorrhage. Risks and benefits were estimated for delayed times of treatment initiation using left-truncated models. RESULTS: Through 90 days, the rate of major ischemic events was initially high then decreased markedly, whereas the rate of major hemorrhage remained low but relatively constant throughout. With the use of a model-based approach, the optimal change point for major ischemic events was 21 days (0-21 days hazard ratio 0.65 for clopidogrel-aspirin versus aspirin; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85; P=0.0015, in comparison to 22-90 days hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.81-2.35; P=0.24). Models showed benefits of clopidogrel-aspirin for treatment delayed as long as 3 days after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of clopidogrel-aspirin occurs predominantly within the first 21 days, and outweighs the low, but ongoing risk of major hemorrhage. When considered with the results of the CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients With Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events), a similar trial treating with clopidogrel-aspirin for 21 days and showing no increase in major hemorrhage, these results suggest that limiting clopidogrel-aspirin use to 21 days may maximize benefit and reduce risk after high-risk transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Disability After Minor Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack in the POINT Trial.

Background and Purpose- While combination aspirin and clopidogrel reduces recurrent stroke compared with aspirin alone in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke, the effect on disability is uncertain. Methods- The POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) randomized patients with TIA or minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤3) within 12 hours of onset to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone. The primary outcome measure was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. We performed a post hoc exploratory analysis to examine the effect of treatment on overall disability (defined as modified Rankin Scale score >1) at 90 days, as well as disability ascribed by the local investigator to index or recurrent stroke. We also evaluated predictors of disability. Results- At 90 days, 188 of 1964 (9.6%) of patients enrolled with TIA and 471 of 2586 (18.2%) of those enrolled with stroke were disabled. Overall disability was similar between patients assigned DAPT versus aspirin alone (14.7% versus 14.3%; odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.82-1.14]; P=0.69). However, there were numerically fewer patients with disability in conjunction with a primary outcome event in the DAPT arm (3.0% versus 4.0%; odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-1.01]; P=0.06) and significantly fewer patients in the DAPT arm with disability attributed by the investigators to either the index event or recurrent stroke (5.9% versus 7.4%; odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99]; P=0.04). Notably, disability attributed to the index event accounted for the majority of this difference (4.5% versus 6.0%; odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57-0.96]; P=0.02). In multivariate analysis, age, subsequent ischemic stroke, serious adverse events, and major bleeding were significantly associated with disability in TIA; for those with stroke, female sex, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, recurrent ischemic stroke, subsequent myocardial infarction, and serious adverse events were associated with disability. Conclusions- In addition to reducing recurrent stroke in patients with acute minor stroke and TIA, DAPT might reduce stroke-related disability. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Efficacy of Clopidogrel for Prevention of Stroke Based on CYP2C19 Allele Status in the POINT Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet drug that is metabolized to its active form by the CYP2C19 enzyme. The CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) found a significant interaction between loss-of-function allele status for the CYP2C19 gene and the effect of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel on the rate of early recurrent stroke following acute transient ischemic attack/minor stroke. The POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke Trial), similar in design to CHANCE but performed largely in North America and Europe, demonstrated a reduction in early recurrent stroke with dual antiplatelet therapy compared with aspirin alone. This substudy was done to evaluate a potential interaction between loss-of-function CYP2C19 alleles and outcome by treatment group in POINT. METHODS: Of the 269 sites in 10 countries that enrolled patients in POINT, 134 sites participated in this substudy. DNA samples were genotyped for CYP2C19 *2, *3, and *17 alleles and classified as being carriers or noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles. Major ischemia consisted of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemic vascular death. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty-two patients provided analyzable DNA. The rates of major ischemia were 6.7% for the aspirin group versus 2.3% for the dual antiplatelet therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.09-1.21]; P=0.09) among carriers of loss-of-function allele. The rates of major ischemia were 5.6% for the aspirin group versus 3.7% for the dual antiplatelet therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.32-1.34]; P=0.25) among noncarriers. There was no significant interaction by genotype for major ischemia (P=0.36) or stroke (P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: This substudy of POINT found no significant interaction with CYP2C19 loss-of-function carrier status and outcome by treatment group. Failure to confirm the findings from the CHANCE trial may be because the loss-of-function alleles tested are not clinically important in this context or because the 2 trials had differences in racial/ethnic composition. Additionally, differences between the 2 trials might be due to chance as our statistical power was limited to 50%. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

The association of patient weight and dose of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and valproic acid with treatment success in status epilepticus.

The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial was a blinded, comparative-effectiveness study of fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, and valproic acid in benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The primary outcome was clinical seizure cessation and increased responsiveness without additional anticonvulsant medications. Weight-based dosing was capped at 75 kg. Hence, patients weighing >75 kg received a lower mg/kg dose. Logistic regression models were developed in 235 adults to determine the association of weight (≤ or >75 kg, ≤ or >90 kg), sex, treatment, and weight-normalized dose with the primary outcome and solely seizure cessation. The primary outcome was achieved in 45.1% and 42.5% of those ≤75 kg and >75 kg, respectively. Using univariate analyses, the likelihood of success for those >75 kg (odds ratio [OR] = 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-1.51) or >90 kg (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.42-1.66) was not statistically different compared with those ≤75 kg or ≤90 kg, respectively. Similarly, other predictors were not significantly associated with primary outcome or clinical seizure cessation. Our findings suggest that doses, capped at 75 kg, likely resulted in concentrations greater than those needed for outcome. Studies that include drug concentrations and heavier individuals are needed to confirm these findings.

Lessons from the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial.

Convulsive status epilepticus (SE) is a relatively common emergency condition affecting individuals of all ages. The primary goal of treatment is prompt termination of seizures. Where first-line treatment with benzodiazepine has failed to achieve this, a condition known as established SE (ESE), there is uncertainty about which agent to use next. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) is a 3-arm (valproate (VPA), fosphenytoin (FOS), levetiracetam (LEV)), phase III, double-blind randomized comparative effectiveness study in patients aged 2 years and above with established convulsive SE. Enrollment was completed in January 2019, and the results are expected later this year. We discuss lessons learnt during the conduct of the study in relation to the following: ethical considerations; trial design and practical implementation in emergency settings, including pediatric and adult populations; quality assurance; and outcome determination where treating emergency clinicians may lack specialist expertise. We consider that the ESETT is already informing both clinical practice and future trial design. This article is part of the Special Issue "Proceedings of the 7th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures".

Factors Influencing Oral Intake Improvement and Feeding Tube Dependency in Patients with Poststroke Dysphagia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess ischemic stroke patients regarding the relationship between lesion locations, swallowing impairment, medical and demographic factors and (1) oral intake improvement and (2) feeding tube dependency at discharge from their acute hospital stay. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, retrospective observational longitudinal cohort study of acute, first-ever, ischemic stroke patients. Patients who had an initial nonoral feeding recommendation from a speech and language pathologist and who underwent a modified barium swallow study within their hospital stay were included. Oral intake status was measured with the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) as the change in FOIS during the hospital stay and as feeding tube dependency at hospital discharge. Associations were assessed with multiple linear regression modeling controlling for age, comorbidities, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: We included 44 stroke patients. At hospital discharge, 93% of patients had oral intake restrictions and 30% were feeding tube dependent. Following multiple linear regression modeling, age, damage to the left superior frontal gyrus, dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus, hypothalamus, and nucleus accumbens were significant predictors for FOIS change. Feeding tube dependency showed no significant associations with any prognostic variables when controlling for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients with an initial nonoral feeding recommendation are discharged with oral intake restrictions indicating a continued need for swallowing assessments and treatment after discharge. Lesion locations associated with motivation, reward, and drive to consume food as well as swallowing impairment, higher age, and more comorbidities were related to less oral intake improvement.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Aged ≤70 Years With Intravenous Glyburide From the Phase II GAMES-RP Study of Large Hemispheric Infarction: An Exploratory Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether subjects aged ≤70 years who were treated with intravenous glyburide (RP-1127; BIIB093; glibenclamide) would have better long-term outcomes than those who received placebo. METHODS: GAMES-RP (Glyburide Advantage in Malignant Edema and Stroke-Remedy Pharmaceuticals) was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial. Eighty-six participants, aged 18 to 80 years, who presented to 18 centers with large hemispheric infarction (baseline diffusion-weighted imaging volumes, 82-300 cm3) randomized within 10 hours of symptom onset were enrolled. In the current exploratory analysis, we included participants aged ≤70 years treated with intravenous glyburide (n=35) or placebo (n=30) who met per-protocol criteria. Intravenous glyburide or placebo was administered in a 1:1 ratio. We analyzed 90-day and 12-month mortality, functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index), and quality of life (EuroQol group 5-dimension). Additional outcomes assessed included blood-brain barrier injury (MMP-9 [matrix metalloproteinase 9]) and cerebral edema (brain midline shift). RESULTS: Participants ≤70 years of age treated with intravenous glyburide had lower mortality at all time points (log-rank for survival hazards ratio, 0.34; P=0.04). After adjustment for age, the difference in functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale) demonstrated a trend toward benefit for intravenous glyburide-treated subjects at 90 days (odds ratio, 2.31; P=0.07). Repeated measures analysis at 90 days, 6 months, and 12 months using generalized estimating equations showed a significant treatment effect of intravenous glyburide on the Barthel Index (P=0.03) and EuroQol group 5-dimension (P=0.05). Participants treated with intravenous glyburide had lower plasma levels of MMP-9 (189 versus 376 ng/mL; P<0.001) and decreased midline shift (4.7 versus 9 mm; P<0.001) compared with participants who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, participants ≤70 years of age with large hemispheric infarction have improved survival after acute therapy with intravenous glyburide. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01794182.