User login
Preventive antipyretics, antibiotics not needed in stroke
“The results of PRECIOUS do not support preventive use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke,” senior study author Bart van der Worp, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, concluded.
“This trial was all about prevention,” trial co-investigator, Philip Bath, MD, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), said in an interview.
“It was trying to improve outcomes by preventing infection, fever, and aspiration pneumonia, but the message from these results is that while we should be on the lookout for these complications and treat them early when they occur, we don’t need to give these medications on a prophylactic basis.”
The PREvention of Complications to Improve OUtcome in elderly patients with acute Stroke (PRECIOUS) trial was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
Dr. Van der Worp explained that infections, fever, and aspiration pneumonia frequently occur following stroke, particularly in older patients, and these poststroke complications are associated with an increased risk of death and poor functional outcome.
“We assessed whether a pharmacological strategy to reduce the risk of infections and fever improves outcomes of elderly patients with moderately severe or severe stroke,” he said.
Previous studies looking at this approach have been performed in broad populations of stroke patients who had a relatively low risk of poststroke complications, thereby reducing the potential for benefit from these interventions.
The current PRECIOUS trial was therefore conducted in a more selective elderly population with more severe strokes, a group believed to be at higher risk of infection and fever.
The trial included patients aged 66 years or older with moderately severe to severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥ 6) or intracerebral hemorrhage.
They were randomized in a 3 x 2 factorial design to oral, rectal, or intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg three times a day); intravenous ceftriaxone (2,000 mg once daily); oral, rectal, or intravenous paracetamol (1,000 mg four times daily); or usual care.
Medications were started within 24 hours after symptom onset and continued for 4 days or until complete recovery or discharge from hospital, if earlier.
“We assessed these three simple, safe, and inexpensive therapies – paracetamol to prevent fever; the antiemetic, metoclopramide, to prevent aspiration; and ceftriaxone, which is the preferred antibiotic for post-stroke pneumonia in the Netherlands,” Dr. van der Worp said.
The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days.
The trial was aiming to enroll 3,800 patients from 67 European sites but was stopped after 1,493 patients had been included because of lack of funding. After excluding patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up, 1,471 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
Results showed no effect on the primary outcome of any of the prophylactic treatments.
“None of the medications had any effect on the functional outcome at 90 days. This was a surprise to me,” Dr. Van der Worp commented. “I had expected that at least one of the medications would have been of benefit.”
A secondary outcome was the diagnosis of pneumonia, which again was not reduced by any of the medications.
“Remarkably, neither ceftriaxone nor metoclopramide had any effect on the risk of developing pneumonia. It was all quite disappointing,” van der Worp said.
There was, however, a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections in the ceftriaxone group.
Trying to explain why there was a reduction in urinary tract infections but not pneumonia with the antibiotic, Dr. Van der Worp pointed out that poststroke pneumonia is to a large extent caused by a mechanical process (aspiration), and bacteria may only play a minor role in its development.
He said he was therefore surprised that metoclopramide, which should prevent the mechanical process of aspiration, did not reduce the development of pneumonia.
He suggested that some patients may have already experienced aspiration before the metoclopramide was started, noting that many patients with acute stroke already have signs of pneumonia on CT scan in the first few hours after symptom onset.
A previous smaller study (MAPS) had shown a lower rate of pneumonia in stroke patients given metoclopramide, but in this study the drug was given for 3 weeks.
Discussing the PRECIOUS trial at the ESOC meeting, Christine Roffe, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Keele (England) University, and senior investigator of the MAPS study, suggested that a longer period of metoclopramide treatment may be needed than the 4 days given in the PRECIOUS study, as the risk of pneumonia persists for longer than just a few days.
She noted that another trial (MAPS-2) is now underway in the United Kingdom to try and confirm the first MAPS result with longer duration metoclopramide.
Dr. Van der Worp responded: “Certainly, I think that the MAPS-2 study should be continued. It is investigating a much longer duration of treatment, which may be beneficial, especially in patients with more severe strokes.”
On the reason for the disappointing results with paracetamol, Dr. Van der Worp elaborated: “We found that only a very few of these older patients developed a fever – only about 5% in the control group. Paracetamol did reduce the risk of fever, but because the proportion of patients who developed fever was so small, this may have been why it didn’t translate into any effect on the functional outcome.”
Dr. Roffe concluded that PRECIOUS was an important study. “There is also a positive message here. We have all been worried about using too many antibiotics. We need to make sure we use these drugs responsibly. I think this trial has told us there is little point in using antibiotics in a preventative way in these patients.”
She added that although the trial was stopped prematurely, it had produced decisive results.
“Yes, I believe that even if the trial was much larger, we still would not have shown an effect,” Dr. Van der Worp agreed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The results of PRECIOUS do not support preventive use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke,” senior study author Bart van der Worp, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, concluded.
“This trial was all about prevention,” trial co-investigator, Philip Bath, MD, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), said in an interview.
“It was trying to improve outcomes by preventing infection, fever, and aspiration pneumonia, but the message from these results is that while we should be on the lookout for these complications and treat them early when they occur, we don’t need to give these medications on a prophylactic basis.”
The PREvention of Complications to Improve OUtcome in elderly patients with acute Stroke (PRECIOUS) trial was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
Dr. Van der Worp explained that infections, fever, and aspiration pneumonia frequently occur following stroke, particularly in older patients, and these poststroke complications are associated with an increased risk of death and poor functional outcome.
“We assessed whether a pharmacological strategy to reduce the risk of infections and fever improves outcomes of elderly patients with moderately severe or severe stroke,” he said.
Previous studies looking at this approach have been performed in broad populations of stroke patients who had a relatively low risk of poststroke complications, thereby reducing the potential for benefit from these interventions.
The current PRECIOUS trial was therefore conducted in a more selective elderly population with more severe strokes, a group believed to be at higher risk of infection and fever.
The trial included patients aged 66 years or older with moderately severe to severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥ 6) or intracerebral hemorrhage.
They were randomized in a 3 x 2 factorial design to oral, rectal, or intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg three times a day); intravenous ceftriaxone (2,000 mg once daily); oral, rectal, or intravenous paracetamol (1,000 mg four times daily); or usual care.
Medications were started within 24 hours after symptom onset and continued for 4 days or until complete recovery or discharge from hospital, if earlier.
“We assessed these three simple, safe, and inexpensive therapies – paracetamol to prevent fever; the antiemetic, metoclopramide, to prevent aspiration; and ceftriaxone, which is the preferred antibiotic for post-stroke pneumonia in the Netherlands,” Dr. van der Worp said.
The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days.
The trial was aiming to enroll 3,800 patients from 67 European sites but was stopped after 1,493 patients had been included because of lack of funding. After excluding patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up, 1,471 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
Results showed no effect on the primary outcome of any of the prophylactic treatments.
“None of the medications had any effect on the functional outcome at 90 days. This was a surprise to me,” Dr. Van der Worp commented. “I had expected that at least one of the medications would have been of benefit.”
A secondary outcome was the diagnosis of pneumonia, which again was not reduced by any of the medications.
“Remarkably, neither ceftriaxone nor metoclopramide had any effect on the risk of developing pneumonia. It was all quite disappointing,” van der Worp said.
There was, however, a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections in the ceftriaxone group.
Trying to explain why there was a reduction in urinary tract infections but not pneumonia with the antibiotic, Dr. Van der Worp pointed out that poststroke pneumonia is to a large extent caused by a mechanical process (aspiration), and bacteria may only play a minor role in its development.
He said he was therefore surprised that metoclopramide, which should prevent the mechanical process of aspiration, did not reduce the development of pneumonia.
He suggested that some patients may have already experienced aspiration before the metoclopramide was started, noting that many patients with acute stroke already have signs of pneumonia on CT scan in the first few hours after symptom onset.
A previous smaller study (MAPS) had shown a lower rate of pneumonia in stroke patients given metoclopramide, but in this study the drug was given for 3 weeks.
Discussing the PRECIOUS trial at the ESOC meeting, Christine Roffe, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Keele (England) University, and senior investigator of the MAPS study, suggested that a longer period of metoclopramide treatment may be needed than the 4 days given in the PRECIOUS study, as the risk of pneumonia persists for longer than just a few days.
She noted that another trial (MAPS-2) is now underway in the United Kingdom to try and confirm the first MAPS result with longer duration metoclopramide.
Dr. Van der Worp responded: “Certainly, I think that the MAPS-2 study should be continued. It is investigating a much longer duration of treatment, which may be beneficial, especially in patients with more severe strokes.”
On the reason for the disappointing results with paracetamol, Dr. Van der Worp elaborated: “We found that only a very few of these older patients developed a fever – only about 5% in the control group. Paracetamol did reduce the risk of fever, but because the proportion of patients who developed fever was so small, this may have been why it didn’t translate into any effect on the functional outcome.”
Dr. Roffe concluded that PRECIOUS was an important study. “There is also a positive message here. We have all been worried about using too many antibiotics. We need to make sure we use these drugs responsibly. I think this trial has told us there is little point in using antibiotics in a preventative way in these patients.”
She added that although the trial was stopped prematurely, it had produced decisive results.
“Yes, I believe that even if the trial was much larger, we still would not have shown an effect,” Dr. Van der Worp agreed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The results of PRECIOUS do not support preventive use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke,” senior study author Bart van der Worp, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, concluded.
“This trial was all about prevention,” trial co-investigator, Philip Bath, MD, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), said in an interview.
“It was trying to improve outcomes by preventing infection, fever, and aspiration pneumonia, but the message from these results is that while we should be on the lookout for these complications and treat them early when they occur, we don’t need to give these medications on a prophylactic basis.”
The PREvention of Complications to Improve OUtcome in elderly patients with acute Stroke (PRECIOUS) trial was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
Dr. Van der Worp explained that infections, fever, and aspiration pneumonia frequently occur following stroke, particularly in older patients, and these poststroke complications are associated with an increased risk of death and poor functional outcome.
“We assessed whether a pharmacological strategy to reduce the risk of infections and fever improves outcomes of elderly patients with moderately severe or severe stroke,” he said.
Previous studies looking at this approach have been performed in broad populations of stroke patients who had a relatively low risk of poststroke complications, thereby reducing the potential for benefit from these interventions.
The current PRECIOUS trial was therefore conducted in a more selective elderly population with more severe strokes, a group believed to be at higher risk of infection and fever.
The trial included patients aged 66 years or older with moderately severe to severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥ 6) or intracerebral hemorrhage.
They were randomized in a 3 x 2 factorial design to oral, rectal, or intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg three times a day); intravenous ceftriaxone (2,000 mg once daily); oral, rectal, or intravenous paracetamol (1,000 mg four times daily); or usual care.
Medications were started within 24 hours after symptom onset and continued for 4 days or until complete recovery or discharge from hospital, if earlier.
“We assessed these three simple, safe, and inexpensive therapies – paracetamol to prevent fever; the antiemetic, metoclopramide, to prevent aspiration; and ceftriaxone, which is the preferred antibiotic for post-stroke pneumonia in the Netherlands,” Dr. van der Worp said.
The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days.
The trial was aiming to enroll 3,800 patients from 67 European sites but was stopped after 1,493 patients had been included because of lack of funding. After excluding patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up, 1,471 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
Results showed no effect on the primary outcome of any of the prophylactic treatments.
“None of the medications had any effect on the functional outcome at 90 days. This was a surprise to me,” Dr. Van der Worp commented. “I had expected that at least one of the medications would have been of benefit.”
A secondary outcome was the diagnosis of pneumonia, which again was not reduced by any of the medications.
“Remarkably, neither ceftriaxone nor metoclopramide had any effect on the risk of developing pneumonia. It was all quite disappointing,” van der Worp said.
There was, however, a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections in the ceftriaxone group.
Trying to explain why there was a reduction in urinary tract infections but not pneumonia with the antibiotic, Dr. Van der Worp pointed out that poststroke pneumonia is to a large extent caused by a mechanical process (aspiration), and bacteria may only play a minor role in its development.
He said he was therefore surprised that metoclopramide, which should prevent the mechanical process of aspiration, did not reduce the development of pneumonia.
He suggested that some patients may have already experienced aspiration before the metoclopramide was started, noting that many patients with acute stroke already have signs of pneumonia on CT scan in the first few hours after symptom onset.
A previous smaller study (MAPS) had shown a lower rate of pneumonia in stroke patients given metoclopramide, but in this study the drug was given for 3 weeks.
Discussing the PRECIOUS trial at the ESOC meeting, Christine Roffe, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Keele (England) University, and senior investigator of the MAPS study, suggested that a longer period of metoclopramide treatment may be needed than the 4 days given in the PRECIOUS study, as the risk of pneumonia persists for longer than just a few days.
She noted that another trial (MAPS-2) is now underway in the United Kingdom to try and confirm the first MAPS result with longer duration metoclopramide.
Dr. Van der Worp responded: “Certainly, I think that the MAPS-2 study should be continued. It is investigating a much longer duration of treatment, which may be beneficial, especially in patients with more severe strokes.”
On the reason for the disappointing results with paracetamol, Dr. Van der Worp elaborated: “We found that only a very few of these older patients developed a fever – only about 5% in the control group. Paracetamol did reduce the risk of fever, but because the proportion of patients who developed fever was so small, this may have been why it didn’t translate into any effect on the functional outcome.”
Dr. Roffe concluded that PRECIOUS was an important study. “There is also a positive message here. We have all been worried about using too many antibiotics. We need to make sure we use these drugs responsibly. I think this trial has told us there is little point in using antibiotics in a preventative way in these patients.”
She added that although the trial was stopped prematurely, it had produced decisive results.
“Yes, I believe that even if the trial was much larger, we still would not have shown an effect,” Dr. Van der Worp agreed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
Intensive BP reduction after stroke recanalization harmful
MUNICH, GERMANY – suggests results from the OPTIMAL-BP trial.
The research, presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, supports the latest U.S. and European guidelines, which recommend a relatively high upper SBP limit.
For the trial, which was halted early, more than 300 patients who successfully underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to intensive or conventional BP management within 2 hours of recanalization.
Patients in the intensive group were 44% less likely than those assigned to conventional management to have a favorable outcome of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 3 months, while having similar rates of adverse outcomes.
The results suggest that intensive BP lowering in the 24 hours after recanalization leads to an increased risk of disability without decreasing the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or death, said study presenter Hyo Suk Nam, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Yonsei (South Korea) University.
Consequently, the trial “does not support intensive blood pressure management” in that early post-IAT period, although the “optimal blood pressure range remains unclear and requires more investigation,” he said.
Dr. Nam added that the results suggest, “despite recanalization, some areas in the ischemic brain may have already been damaged,” or that surrounding areas continue to have reduced blood circulation.
He believes that these areas may have reduced capacity for autoregulation and so “may not effectively counteract sudden drops in blood pressure.
“Thus, intensive blood pressure lowering may further reduce blood flow ... and exacerbate ischemic injury.”
On the other hand, the conventional group confirmed prior studies indicating that high SBP is associated with poor outcomes.
Dr. Nam suggested that increased BP “may be a physiological response to the acute stress of stroke,” but that the adverse outcomes in some patients “might reflect stroke severity rather than being a direct effect of raised blood pressure.”
Session cochair Carlos Molina, MD, director of the stroke unit and brain hemodynamics at Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, commented that “it’s very important to remember that the guidances are endorsed by the results of this study.
He said in an interview that “intensive blood pressure lowering harms the brain, especially just after reperfusion.
“So, the results are in line with the previous concept that we need to be careful, as intensive blood pressure lowering is associated with clinical deterioration and poor outcomes.”
He agreed with Dr. Nam that, with high BP also being harmful, the optimal range is currently unclear.
Dr. Molina underlined, however, that, in the absence of further studies, “we have to stick to the guidelines.”
Dr. Nam pointed out that, while high BP can result in reperfusion injury or ICH, “too low blood pressure can worsen cerebral ischemia.”
Yet the management of BP after successful recanalization with IAT is “largely unknown.”
He noted that, while both the European Stroke Organisation and American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend that BP should be kept below 180/105 mm Hg in patients who have undergone successful recanalization, the evidence class for this recommendation is “weak.”
Furthermore, observational studies have indicated that higher maximum or average SBP is associated with poor outcomes, but two multicenter clinical trials of intensive BP lowering after IAT, BP-TARGET and ENCHANTED2/MT, had conflicting results.
The researchers therefore investigated whether intensive BP management would result in better clinical outcomes in the 24 hours after successful recanalization with IAT.
They conducted a multicenter, open-label trial in which patients aged 20 years and older who underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke with large cerebrovascular occlusion and had an SBP of at least 140 mm Hg were recruited from 19 centers in South Korea between June 2020 and November 2022.
The patients were randomly assigned within 2 hours of successful recanalization to intensive BP management, targeting an SBP less than 140 mm Hg, or conventional management, targeting an SBP of 140-180 mm Hg.
Clinicians could use local treatment protocols based on available intravenous BP-lowering drugs. BP was measured every 15 minutes for the first hour after randomization and then hourly for 24 hours.
The trial was terminated early because of safety concerns after the ENCHANTED2/MT trial revealed a negative impact on mRS scores at 3 months with intensive BP management.
Of 1,606 potentially eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with IAT, 306 were randomly assigned, with 155 in the intensive group and 150 in the conventional group included in the primary analysis.
The mean age was 73.1 years, and 40.3% were women. The average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score prior to IAT was 13. The mean time from stroke onset to randomization was 480 minutes (interquartile range, 320-820 minutes).
At 24 hours, the mean SBP in the intensive group was 129.2 mm Hg versus 138.0 mm Hg in the conventional group, for a between-group difference of 9.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –6.9, P < .001).
Patients in the intensive group spent 80.3% of the first 24 hours with SBP less than 140 mm Hg versus 54.2% in the conventional group (P < .001). In contrast, conventional group patients spent 42.1% of the first 24 hours with SBP 140-180 mm Hg versus 14.2% in the intensive group.
Crucially, Dr. Nam showed that patients in the intensive BP-lowering group were significantly less likely than those in the conventional group to have a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS score of 0-2, at 3 months, at 39.4% versus 54.4%, or an adjusted odds ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.96, P = .034).
Moreover, a poor outcome was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.17-2.91) times more common in the intervention group than the conventional group, Dr. Nam reported, with a number needed to harm of 6.6.
In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic ICH between the groups, at 9% in the intensive versus 8.1% in the conventional groups, or an aOR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.48-2.53, P = .816).
There was also no difference in the rate of death related to the index stroke within 90 days, at 7.7% versus 5.4% (AOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.61-4.92, P = .307).
There were also no significant differences between the groups in key secondary outcomes, such as NIHSS score at 24 hours, recanalization at 24 hours, favorable outcome on the mRS at 1 month, and the EQ-5D-3L quality of life score.
However, patients in the intensive group were substantially more likely to experience malignant brain edema, at 7.7% versus 1.3% in the conventional group (aOR, 7.88; 95% CI, 1.57-39.39, P = .012).
Restricted cubic spline regression analysis indicated that there was a U-shaped relationship between mean SBP during the 24 hours following IAT and the odds ratio of a poor outcome, in which both a low and a high BPe were unfavorable.
Dr. Nam cautioned that, when interpreting the results, the early termination of the study may have reduced its statistical power and increased the likelihood of random and exaggerated treatment effects.
He also noted that the study was conducted in South Korea, and so the results may not be generalizable to other populations.
The study received a grant from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MUNICH, GERMANY – suggests results from the OPTIMAL-BP trial.
The research, presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, supports the latest U.S. and European guidelines, which recommend a relatively high upper SBP limit.
For the trial, which was halted early, more than 300 patients who successfully underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to intensive or conventional BP management within 2 hours of recanalization.
Patients in the intensive group were 44% less likely than those assigned to conventional management to have a favorable outcome of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 3 months, while having similar rates of adverse outcomes.
The results suggest that intensive BP lowering in the 24 hours after recanalization leads to an increased risk of disability without decreasing the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or death, said study presenter Hyo Suk Nam, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Yonsei (South Korea) University.
Consequently, the trial “does not support intensive blood pressure management” in that early post-IAT period, although the “optimal blood pressure range remains unclear and requires more investigation,” he said.
Dr. Nam added that the results suggest, “despite recanalization, some areas in the ischemic brain may have already been damaged,” or that surrounding areas continue to have reduced blood circulation.
He believes that these areas may have reduced capacity for autoregulation and so “may not effectively counteract sudden drops in blood pressure.
“Thus, intensive blood pressure lowering may further reduce blood flow ... and exacerbate ischemic injury.”
On the other hand, the conventional group confirmed prior studies indicating that high SBP is associated with poor outcomes.
Dr. Nam suggested that increased BP “may be a physiological response to the acute stress of stroke,” but that the adverse outcomes in some patients “might reflect stroke severity rather than being a direct effect of raised blood pressure.”
Session cochair Carlos Molina, MD, director of the stroke unit and brain hemodynamics at Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, commented that “it’s very important to remember that the guidances are endorsed by the results of this study.
He said in an interview that “intensive blood pressure lowering harms the brain, especially just after reperfusion.
“So, the results are in line with the previous concept that we need to be careful, as intensive blood pressure lowering is associated with clinical deterioration and poor outcomes.”
He agreed with Dr. Nam that, with high BP also being harmful, the optimal range is currently unclear.
Dr. Molina underlined, however, that, in the absence of further studies, “we have to stick to the guidelines.”
Dr. Nam pointed out that, while high BP can result in reperfusion injury or ICH, “too low blood pressure can worsen cerebral ischemia.”
Yet the management of BP after successful recanalization with IAT is “largely unknown.”
He noted that, while both the European Stroke Organisation and American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend that BP should be kept below 180/105 mm Hg in patients who have undergone successful recanalization, the evidence class for this recommendation is “weak.”
Furthermore, observational studies have indicated that higher maximum or average SBP is associated with poor outcomes, but two multicenter clinical trials of intensive BP lowering after IAT, BP-TARGET and ENCHANTED2/MT, had conflicting results.
The researchers therefore investigated whether intensive BP management would result in better clinical outcomes in the 24 hours after successful recanalization with IAT.
They conducted a multicenter, open-label trial in which patients aged 20 years and older who underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke with large cerebrovascular occlusion and had an SBP of at least 140 mm Hg were recruited from 19 centers in South Korea between June 2020 and November 2022.
The patients were randomly assigned within 2 hours of successful recanalization to intensive BP management, targeting an SBP less than 140 mm Hg, or conventional management, targeting an SBP of 140-180 mm Hg.
Clinicians could use local treatment protocols based on available intravenous BP-lowering drugs. BP was measured every 15 minutes for the first hour after randomization and then hourly for 24 hours.
The trial was terminated early because of safety concerns after the ENCHANTED2/MT trial revealed a negative impact on mRS scores at 3 months with intensive BP management.
Of 1,606 potentially eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with IAT, 306 were randomly assigned, with 155 in the intensive group and 150 in the conventional group included in the primary analysis.
The mean age was 73.1 years, and 40.3% were women. The average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score prior to IAT was 13. The mean time from stroke onset to randomization was 480 minutes (interquartile range, 320-820 minutes).
At 24 hours, the mean SBP in the intensive group was 129.2 mm Hg versus 138.0 mm Hg in the conventional group, for a between-group difference of 9.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –6.9, P < .001).
Patients in the intensive group spent 80.3% of the first 24 hours with SBP less than 140 mm Hg versus 54.2% in the conventional group (P < .001). In contrast, conventional group patients spent 42.1% of the first 24 hours with SBP 140-180 mm Hg versus 14.2% in the intensive group.
Crucially, Dr. Nam showed that patients in the intensive BP-lowering group were significantly less likely than those in the conventional group to have a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS score of 0-2, at 3 months, at 39.4% versus 54.4%, or an adjusted odds ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.96, P = .034).
Moreover, a poor outcome was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.17-2.91) times more common in the intervention group than the conventional group, Dr. Nam reported, with a number needed to harm of 6.6.
In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic ICH between the groups, at 9% in the intensive versus 8.1% in the conventional groups, or an aOR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.48-2.53, P = .816).
There was also no difference in the rate of death related to the index stroke within 90 days, at 7.7% versus 5.4% (AOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.61-4.92, P = .307).
There were also no significant differences between the groups in key secondary outcomes, such as NIHSS score at 24 hours, recanalization at 24 hours, favorable outcome on the mRS at 1 month, and the EQ-5D-3L quality of life score.
However, patients in the intensive group were substantially more likely to experience malignant brain edema, at 7.7% versus 1.3% in the conventional group (aOR, 7.88; 95% CI, 1.57-39.39, P = .012).
Restricted cubic spline regression analysis indicated that there was a U-shaped relationship between mean SBP during the 24 hours following IAT and the odds ratio of a poor outcome, in which both a low and a high BPe were unfavorable.
Dr. Nam cautioned that, when interpreting the results, the early termination of the study may have reduced its statistical power and increased the likelihood of random and exaggerated treatment effects.
He also noted that the study was conducted in South Korea, and so the results may not be generalizable to other populations.
The study received a grant from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MUNICH, GERMANY – suggests results from the OPTIMAL-BP trial.
The research, presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, supports the latest U.S. and European guidelines, which recommend a relatively high upper SBP limit.
For the trial, which was halted early, more than 300 patients who successfully underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to intensive or conventional BP management within 2 hours of recanalization.
Patients in the intensive group were 44% less likely than those assigned to conventional management to have a favorable outcome of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 3 months, while having similar rates of adverse outcomes.
The results suggest that intensive BP lowering in the 24 hours after recanalization leads to an increased risk of disability without decreasing the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or death, said study presenter Hyo Suk Nam, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Yonsei (South Korea) University.
Consequently, the trial “does not support intensive blood pressure management” in that early post-IAT period, although the “optimal blood pressure range remains unclear and requires more investigation,” he said.
Dr. Nam added that the results suggest, “despite recanalization, some areas in the ischemic brain may have already been damaged,” or that surrounding areas continue to have reduced blood circulation.
He believes that these areas may have reduced capacity for autoregulation and so “may not effectively counteract sudden drops in blood pressure.
“Thus, intensive blood pressure lowering may further reduce blood flow ... and exacerbate ischemic injury.”
On the other hand, the conventional group confirmed prior studies indicating that high SBP is associated with poor outcomes.
Dr. Nam suggested that increased BP “may be a physiological response to the acute stress of stroke,” but that the adverse outcomes in some patients “might reflect stroke severity rather than being a direct effect of raised blood pressure.”
Session cochair Carlos Molina, MD, director of the stroke unit and brain hemodynamics at Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, commented that “it’s very important to remember that the guidances are endorsed by the results of this study.
He said in an interview that “intensive blood pressure lowering harms the brain, especially just after reperfusion.
“So, the results are in line with the previous concept that we need to be careful, as intensive blood pressure lowering is associated with clinical deterioration and poor outcomes.”
He agreed with Dr. Nam that, with high BP also being harmful, the optimal range is currently unclear.
Dr. Molina underlined, however, that, in the absence of further studies, “we have to stick to the guidelines.”
Dr. Nam pointed out that, while high BP can result in reperfusion injury or ICH, “too low blood pressure can worsen cerebral ischemia.”
Yet the management of BP after successful recanalization with IAT is “largely unknown.”
He noted that, while both the European Stroke Organisation and American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend that BP should be kept below 180/105 mm Hg in patients who have undergone successful recanalization, the evidence class for this recommendation is “weak.”
Furthermore, observational studies have indicated that higher maximum or average SBP is associated with poor outcomes, but two multicenter clinical trials of intensive BP lowering after IAT, BP-TARGET and ENCHANTED2/MT, had conflicting results.
The researchers therefore investigated whether intensive BP management would result in better clinical outcomes in the 24 hours after successful recanalization with IAT.
They conducted a multicenter, open-label trial in which patients aged 20 years and older who underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke with large cerebrovascular occlusion and had an SBP of at least 140 mm Hg were recruited from 19 centers in South Korea between June 2020 and November 2022.
The patients were randomly assigned within 2 hours of successful recanalization to intensive BP management, targeting an SBP less than 140 mm Hg, or conventional management, targeting an SBP of 140-180 mm Hg.
Clinicians could use local treatment protocols based on available intravenous BP-lowering drugs. BP was measured every 15 minutes for the first hour after randomization and then hourly for 24 hours.
The trial was terminated early because of safety concerns after the ENCHANTED2/MT trial revealed a negative impact on mRS scores at 3 months with intensive BP management.
Of 1,606 potentially eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with IAT, 306 were randomly assigned, with 155 in the intensive group and 150 in the conventional group included in the primary analysis.
The mean age was 73.1 years, and 40.3% were women. The average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score prior to IAT was 13. The mean time from stroke onset to randomization was 480 minutes (interquartile range, 320-820 minutes).
At 24 hours, the mean SBP in the intensive group was 129.2 mm Hg versus 138.0 mm Hg in the conventional group, for a between-group difference of 9.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –6.9, P < .001).
Patients in the intensive group spent 80.3% of the first 24 hours with SBP less than 140 mm Hg versus 54.2% in the conventional group (P < .001). In contrast, conventional group patients spent 42.1% of the first 24 hours with SBP 140-180 mm Hg versus 14.2% in the intensive group.
Crucially, Dr. Nam showed that patients in the intensive BP-lowering group were significantly less likely than those in the conventional group to have a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS score of 0-2, at 3 months, at 39.4% versus 54.4%, or an adjusted odds ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.96, P = .034).
Moreover, a poor outcome was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.17-2.91) times more common in the intervention group than the conventional group, Dr. Nam reported, with a number needed to harm of 6.6.
In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic ICH between the groups, at 9% in the intensive versus 8.1% in the conventional groups, or an aOR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.48-2.53, P = .816).
There was also no difference in the rate of death related to the index stroke within 90 days, at 7.7% versus 5.4% (AOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.61-4.92, P = .307).
There were also no significant differences between the groups in key secondary outcomes, such as NIHSS score at 24 hours, recanalization at 24 hours, favorable outcome on the mRS at 1 month, and the EQ-5D-3L quality of life score.
However, patients in the intensive group were substantially more likely to experience malignant brain edema, at 7.7% versus 1.3% in the conventional group (aOR, 7.88; 95% CI, 1.57-39.39, P = .012).
Restricted cubic spline regression analysis indicated that there was a U-shaped relationship between mean SBP during the 24 hours following IAT and the odds ratio of a poor outcome, in which both a low and a high BPe were unfavorable.
Dr. Nam cautioned that, when interpreting the results, the early termination of the study may have reduced its statistical power and increased the likelihood of random and exaggerated treatment effects.
He also noted that the study was conducted in South Korea, and so the results may not be generalizable to other populations.
The study received a grant from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESOC 2023
Tenecteplase late after stroke misses endpoint: TIMELESS
However, there were some encouraging trends, and there did not appear to be an increase in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), leading to hope that the option of late thrombolysis in this group of patients may still have potential.
The TIMELESS study tested the approach of giving thrombolysis with tenecteplase (TNK) to patients with a large-vessel occlusion stroke up to 24 hours after symptom onset. Patients were selected by perfusion imaging, and those who had a stroke with a small core and large amount of salvageable brain tissue were included in the placebo-controlled study.
“This is first trial to try giving a thrombolytic so late – up to 24 hours after last known well. While we did not meet the primary outcome, there were some promising findings,” lead author, Gregory Albers, MD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Stroke Center and professor of neurology at Stanford University, said in an interview.
“The most encouraging observation was that we did not show any safety issues with giving TNK to this population at such a late time. Many people thought this would be too high risk but there was no increase in ICH, which was very low and the same in both groups,” Dr. Albers said.
“And we saw some evidence of drug effect. There appeared to be a benefit in patients with M1 occlusions, the most common type of large-vessel occlusion, who represented half the patients in the study,” he added.
The researchers also gained information on the logistics and timing of TNK administration in this late period which they hope can guide the design of a future trial.
Dr. Albers presented the TIMELESS trial at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference.
He explained that there is increasing evidence that intravenous thrombolysis can improve outcome in selected patients even beyond the traditional 4.5-hour time window.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled TIMELESS study sought to investigate whether tenecteplase administered to patients with ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion presenting between 4.5 and 24 hours after last known well would improve clinical outcome as measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at day 90.
The trial included 458 patients with an internal carotid artery occlusion or middle cerebral artery segment 1 or 2 occlusion and presenting with salvageable tissue on imaging. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum, 25 mg) or placebo.
The proportion of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were similar between the two treatment arms (around 77%). The study completion rate was higher than 96% in both treatment arms.
The primary endpoint analyses showed no significant difference in the odds of a lower mRS score at day 90, but there was a slight trend toward benefit in the TNK group in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.56; P = .48).
The percentage of patients achieving a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS of 0-2, was not significantly different between the treatment groups: 46% in the TNK group versus 42% in the placebo group (nominal P = .41).
Promising safety data
There were no significant safety issues, and the risk for bleeding was not significantly increased in the tenecteplase group. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 3.2% of the TNK group versus 2.3% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference.
“The low rate of ICH with TNK at this late time point is very reassuring,” Dr. Albers said. “We believe the reason for the low ICH rate is probably because these patients were selected for small core strokes. We also found that there was a trend towards the most benefit from TNK in patients with the smallest cores, supporting the use of imaging to select patients.”
The secondary endpoint of complete recanalization at 24-hours post randomization was higher in the TNK group at 76.7%, compared with 63.9% in the placebo group (P = .006).
Benefit in M1 occlusions?
Subgroup analysis showed that there appeared to be a benefit of TNK in the 227 patients included who had an M1 occlusion. In this group, the common odds ratio for a more favorable outcome in the mRS shift analysis with TNK was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00-2.52; adjusted nominal P = .051).
The percentage of patients with a favorable outcome (mRS, 0-2) at 90 days in the M1 occlusion subgroup was 45.9% for TNK versus 31.4% for placebo, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.14-3.66; nominal P = .017).
But Dr. Albers cautioned that this was an exploratory analysis, and no formal conclusions should be drawn from these data.
“We saw very strong results in favor of giving thrombolysis in the patients with M1 occlusions. We had preliminary pilot data suggesting this approach may work in these patients,” he commented.
“But we included the smaller M2 occlusions as well, because we thought that as there should be less clot in an M2 occlusion it might be easier to dissolve with thrombolysis,” he added. “But surprisingly, the M2 occlusion patients seemed to do worse with TNK than placebo, and the M1 patients did better.”
Timing of TNK
Dr. Albers said that there was also information from in the study on the timing of TNK administration.
In patients who also received thrombectomy, who made up of the majority of those in the study, the average time of TNK administration was only 20 minutes before the thrombectomy procedure.
“We had hoped to have a longer time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy so the drug would have more time to work. The idea was that patients would be given TNK at the primary stroke center before being transferred for thrombectomy, but actually only a few patients received TNK at the primary stroke center,” Dr. Albers explained.
“But, again surprisingly, we found that patients given TNK right at the time of the thrombectomy procedure seemed to show a trend toward benefit over placebo,” he reported.
He suggested that this may be caused by the thrombolytic dissolving the small fragments that can sometimes break off and cause further occlusions when the clot is removed by thrombectomy.
“We have learned a lot from this study, and we are planning to go forward with the information gained to plan a second study, in which we will focus on patients with M1 occlusions and try to get the drug on board at primary stroke centers, so it has more time to work before thrombectomy,” he added.
Commenting on the TIMELESS study at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that he thought the trial had shown three important results: “Firstly, TNK appeared to be safe in this late window in these selected patients – that is a very important observation. Secondly, reperfusion rates at 24 hours were increased with TNK and we know that this translates into clinical benefit. And thirdly, there was a neutral effect on primary outcomes, but I think the sample size of 438 patients was not large enough to show efficacy.”
Dr. Tsivgoulis concluded that these points need to be addressed in future trials.
The TIMELESS trial was funded by Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, there were some encouraging trends, and there did not appear to be an increase in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), leading to hope that the option of late thrombolysis in this group of patients may still have potential.
The TIMELESS study tested the approach of giving thrombolysis with tenecteplase (TNK) to patients with a large-vessel occlusion stroke up to 24 hours after symptom onset. Patients were selected by perfusion imaging, and those who had a stroke with a small core and large amount of salvageable brain tissue were included in the placebo-controlled study.
“This is first trial to try giving a thrombolytic so late – up to 24 hours after last known well. While we did not meet the primary outcome, there were some promising findings,” lead author, Gregory Albers, MD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Stroke Center and professor of neurology at Stanford University, said in an interview.
“The most encouraging observation was that we did not show any safety issues with giving TNK to this population at such a late time. Many people thought this would be too high risk but there was no increase in ICH, which was very low and the same in both groups,” Dr. Albers said.
“And we saw some evidence of drug effect. There appeared to be a benefit in patients with M1 occlusions, the most common type of large-vessel occlusion, who represented half the patients in the study,” he added.
The researchers also gained information on the logistics and timing of TNK administration in this late period which they hope can guide the design of a future trial.
Dr. Albers presented the TIMELESS trial at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference.
He explained that there is increasing evidence that intravenous thrombolysis can improve outcome in selected patients even beyond the traditional 4.5-hour time window.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled TIMELESS study sought to investigate whether tenecteplase administered to patients with ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion presenting between 4.5 and 24 hours after last known well would improve clinical outcome as measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at day 90.
The trial included 458 patients with an internal carotid artery occlusion or middle cerebral artery segment 1 or 2 occlusion and presenting with salvageable tissue on imaging. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum, 25 mg) or placebo.
The proportion of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were similar between the two treatment arms (around 77%). The study completion rate was higher than 96% in both treatment arms.
The primary endpoint analyses showed no significant difference in the odds of a lower mRS score at day 90, but there was a slight trend toward benefit in the TNK group in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.56; P = .48).
The percentage of patients achieving a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS of 0-2, was not significantly different between the treatment groups: 46% in the TNK group versus 42% in the placebo group (nominal P = .41).
Promising safety data
There were no significant safety issues, and the risk for bleeding was not significantly increased in the tenecteplase group. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 3.2% of the TNK group versus 2.3% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference.
“The low rate of ICH with TNK at this late time point is very reassuring,” Dr. Albers said. “We believe the reason for the low ICH rate is probably because these patients were selected for small core strokes. We also found that there was a trend towards the most benefit from TNK in patients with the smallest cores, supporting the use of imaging to select patients.”
The secondary endpoint of complete recanalization at 24-hours post randomization was higher in the TNK group at 76.7%, compared with 63.9% in the placebo group (P = .006).
Benefit in M1 occlusions?
Subgroup analysis showed that there appeared to be a benefit of TNK in the 227 patients included who had an M1 occlusion. In this group, the common odds ratio for a more favorable outcome in the mRS shift analysis with TNK was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00-2.52; adjusted nominal P = .051).
The percentage of patients with a favorable outcome (mRS, 0-2) at 90 days in the M1 occlusion subgroup was 45.9% for TNK versus 31.4% for placebo, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.14-3.66; nominal P = .017).
But Dr. Albers cautioned that this was an exploratory analysis, and no formal conclusions should be drawn from these data.
“We saw very strong results in favor of giving thrombolysis in the patients with M1 occlusions. We had preliminary pilot data suggesting this approach may work in these patients,” he commented.
“But we included the smaller M2 occlusions as well, because we thought that as there should be less clot in an M2 occlusion it might be easier to dissolve with thrombolysis,” he added. “But surprisingly, the M2 occlusion patients seemed to do worse with TNK than placebo, and the M1 patients did better.”
Timing of TNK
Dr. Albers said that there was also information from in the study on the timing of TNK administration.
In patients who also received thrombectomy, who made up of the majority of those in the study, the average time of TNK administration was only 20 minutes before the thrombectomy procedure.
“We had hoped to have a longer time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy so the drug would have more time to work. The idea was that patients would be given TNK at the primary stroke center before being transferred for thrombectomy, but actually only a few patients received TNK at the primary stroke center,” Dr. Albers explained.
“But, again surprisingly, we found that patients given TNK right at the time of the thrombectomy procedure seemed to show a trend toward benefit over placebo,” he reported.
He suggested that this may be caused by the thrombolytic dissolving the small fragments that can sometimes break off and cause further occlusions when the clot is removed by thrombectomy.
“We have learned a lot from this study, and we are planning to go forward with the information gained to plan a second study, in which we will focus on patients with M1 occlusions and try to get the drug on board at primary stroke centers, so it has more time to work before thrombectomy,” he added.
Commenting on the TIMELESS study at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that he thought the trial had shown three important results: “Firstly, TNK appeared to be safe in this late window in these selected patients – that is a very important observation. Secondly, reperfusion rates at 24 hours were increased with TNK and we know that this translates into clinical benefit. And thirdly, there was a neutral effect on primary outcomes, but I think the sample size of 438 patients was not large enough to show efficacy.”
Dr. Tsivgoulis concluded that these points need to be addressed in future trials.
The TIMELESS trial was funded by Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, there were some encouraging trends, and there did not appear to be an increase in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), leading to hope that the option of late thrombolysis in this group of patients may still have potential.
The TIMELESS study tested the approach of giving thrombolysis with tenecteplase (TNK) to patients with a large-vessel occlusion stroke up to 24 hours after symptom onset. Patients were selected by perfusion imaging, and those who had a stroke with a small core and large amount of salvageable brain tissue were included in the placebo-controlled study.
“This is first trial to try giving a thrombolytic so late – up to 24 hours after last known well. While we did not meet the primary outcome, there were some promising findings,” lead author, Gregory Albers, MD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Stroke Center and professor of neurology at Stanford University, said in an interview.
“The most encouraging observation was that we did not show any safety issues with giving TNK to this population at such a late time. Many people thought this would be too high risk but there was no increase in ICH, which was very low and the same in both groups,” Dr. Albers said.
“And we saw some evidence of drug effect. There appeared to be a benefit in patients with M1 occlusions, the most common type of large-vessel occlusion, who represented half the patients in the study,” he added.
The researchers also gained information on the logistics and timing of TNK administration in this late period which they hope can guide the design of a future trial.
Dr. Albers presented the TIMELESS trial at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference.
He explained that there is increasing evidence that intravenous thrombolysis can improve outcome in selected patients even beyond the traditional 4.5-hour time window.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled TIMELESS study sought to investigate whether tenecteplase administered to patients with ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion presenting between 4.5 and 24 hours after last known well would improve clinical outcome as measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at day 90.
The trial included 458 patients with an internal carotid artery occlusion or middle cerebral artery segment 1 or 2 occlusion and presenting with salvageable tissue on imaging. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum, 25 mg) or placebo.
The proportion of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were similar between the two treatment arms (around 77%). The study completion rate was higher than 96% in both treatment arms.
The primary endpoint analyses showed no significant difference in the odds of a lower mRS score at day 90, but there was a slight trend toward benefit in the TNK group in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.56; P = .48).
The percentage of patients achieving a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS of 0-2, was not significantly different between the treatment groups: 46% in the TNK group versus 42% in the placebo group (nominal P = .41).
Promising safety data
There were no significant safety issues, and the risk for bleeding was not significantly increased in the tenecteplase group. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 3.2% of the TNK group versus 2.3% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference.
“The low rate of ICH with TNK at this late time point is very reassuring,” Dr. Albers said. “We believe the reason for the low ICH rate is probably because these patients were selected for small core strokes. We also found that there was a trend towards the most benefit from TNK in patients with the smallest cores, supporting the use of imaging to select patients.”
The secondary endpoint of complete recanalization at 24-hours post randomization was higher in the TNK group at 76.7%, compared with 63.9% in the placebo group (P = .006).
Benefit in M1 occlusions?
Subgroup analysis showed that there appeared to be a benefit of TNK in the 227 patients included who had an M1 occlusion. In this group, the common odds ratio for a more favorable outcome in the mRS shift analysis with TNK was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00-2.52; adjusted nominal P = .051).
The percentage of patients with a favorable outcome (mRS, 0-2) at 90 days in the M1 occlusion subgroup was 45.9% for TNK versus 31.4% for placebo, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.14-3.66; nominal P = .017).
But Dr. Albers cautioned that this was an exploratory analysis, and no formal conclusions should be drawn from these data.
“We saw very strong results in favor of giving thrombolysis in the patients with M1 occlusions. We had preliminary pilot data suggesting this approach may work in these patients,” he commented.
“But we included the smaller M2 occlusions as well, because we thought that as there should be less clot in an M2 occlusion it might be easier to dissolve with thrombolysis,” he added. “But surprisingly, the M2 occlusion patients seemed to do worse with TNK than placebo, and the M1 patients did better.”
Timing of TNK
Dr. Albers said that there was also information from in the study on the timing of TNK administration.
In patients who also received thrombectomy, who made up of the majority of those in the study, the average time of TNK administration was only 20 minutes before the thrombectomy procedure.
“We had hoped to have a longer time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy so the drug would have more time to work. The idea was that patients would be given TNK at the primary stroke center before being transferred for thrombectomy, but actually only a few patients received TNK at the primary stroke center,” Dr. Albers explained.
“But, again surprisingly, we found that patients given TNK right at the time of the thrombectomy procedure seemed to show a trend toward benefit over placebo,” he reported.
He suggested that this may be caused by the thrombolytic dissolving the small fragments that can sometimes break off and cause further occlusions when the clot is removed by thrombectomy.
“We have learned a lot from this study, and we are planning to go forward with the information gained to plan a second study, in which we will focus on patients with M1 occlusions and try to get the drug on board at primary stroke centers, so it has more time to work before thrombectomy,” he added.
Commenting on the TIMELESS study at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that he thought the trial had shown three important results: “Firstly, TNK appeared to be safe in this late window in these selected patients – that is a very important observation. Secondly, reperfusion rates at 24 hours were increased with TNK and we know that this translates into clinical benefit. And thirdly, there was a neutral effect on primary outcomes, but I think the sample size of 438 patients was not large enough to show efficacy.”
Dr. Tsivgoulis concluded that these points need to be addressed in future trials.
The TIMELESS trial was funded by Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
Cardiopathy no basis for choosing anticoagulation in ESUS
MUNICH, GERMANY – suggest findings from the ARCADIA trial.
The trial, which was halted early, randomized more than 1,000 ESUS patients with atrial cardiomyopathy to apixaban or placebo. Results showed that apixaban did not improve rates of recurrent stroke of any kind nor safety outcomes such as major hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.
The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Stroke Organisation Conference.
“We found no benefit of apixaban over aspirin in patients with ESUS who had evidence of atrial cardiopathy, at least based on the criteria in our trial,” said study presenter Hooman Kamel, MD, MS, vice chair for research and chief of neurocritical care in the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“It could be that this concept of thrombogenic atrial cardiopathy really isn’t present unless there is also atrial fibrillation,” he continued, suggesting alternatively that results may be caused by the “incorrect choice of atrial cardiopathy biomarkers or thresholds.”
“We chose these because they were clinically scalable and usable in a multicenter design,” Dr. Kamel explained, adding that there are a number of different proposed biomarkers that could be used in a future study.
The team will now perform secondary analyses over the coming months to “try to help sort out some of these potential explanations.”
Dr. Kamel concluded, however, that, “as of now, no strategy of anticoagulation has been found to be better than antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention after ESUS.”
Similar results
Approached for comment, session cochair Robin Lemmens, MD, PhD, a neurologist in the department of neurosciences, UZ Leuven (Belgium), noted that this is the third ESUS trial, after the NAVIGATE and RE-SPECT trials, and they have all showed “similar results.”
He said, however, that there “could be various reasons for that, and it’s good that they mentioned looking into the subgroups,” as has been done for those other studies.
“Most of these trials were initiated under the concept that most of these patients would have had underlying atrial fibrillation, and then of course there would have been a benefit for anticoagulation.”
“It turns out that that’s not the case,” Dr. Lemmens said, “probably because there’s a lot of heterogeneity in these patients,” with different reasons for developing stroke, “not just only potentially underlying atrial fibrillation.”
Session cochair Arthur Liesz, MD, PhD, Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research, University Hospital, LMU Munich, added that it is important to consider the definition of atrial cardiopathy in this context.
If this was limited only to structural cardiopathy, then this “was a rather small subpopulation in this study,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Liesz said that it could instead have been conducted with “more stringent cutoffs,” and could have considered blood biomarkers, “which then would have delivered more overlap with structural cardiopathy,” and allowed those patients to be analyzed separately.
Heterogeneous etiologies?
Dr. Kamel began by noting that the failure of NAVIGATE and RESPECT to show a benefit from anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ESUS led to the hypothesis that this is “perhaps due to heterogeneous underlying etiologies.”
Moreover, these etiologies “may require different types of antithrombotic therapy to best prevent recurrence, and one such underlying etiology may be atrial cardiopathy.”
He explained that several observational studies have found, in the absence of atrial fibrillation, associations between stroke and different markers of atrial cardiopathy and, “given the proven benefit of anticoagulation in preventing strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation, it seems plausible” that they may also benefit.
To investigate further, the team conducted ARCADIA, an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients aged 45 years and older from 185 sites in the United States and Canada with a clinical diagnosis of stroke that met the consensus criteria for ESUS.
They also were required to have undergone brain imaging to rule out hemorrhagic stroke, and to have a modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or less, indicating up to a moderately severe degree of disability.
They also had atrial cardiopathy, as determined by P-wave terminal force in V1 greater than 5,000mcV*ms on electrocardiography, serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels greater than 250 pg/mL, or a left atrium diameter of at least 3 cm/m2.
The patients were randomly assigned to apixaban 5 mg or 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin placebo, or apixaban placebo plus aspirin 81 mg daily. Those diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after randomization crossed over to open-label anticoagulant therapy at physician discretion.
Dr. Kamel reported that, in 2022, after enrollment of 1015 patients with a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, the trial was halted at the planned interim efficacy/futility analysis, adding that there were “no safety concerns.”
The apixaban and aspirin groups were well balanced in terms of their baseline characteristics. The mean age was 68 years, and 54% were female. Three-quarters of the participants were White; 21.1% were Black.
Prior stroke was reported in 19% of patients. Hypertension was common, in about 77%, and type 2 diabetes was seen in 31%. There were relatively few cases of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease.
The primary efficacy outcome of recurrent stroke of any type occurred in 4.4% of both patients treated with apixaban and those given aspirin, at a hazard ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.55). Similar findings were seen when looking individually at ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, and stroke of undetermined type.
There was also no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of recurrent ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, at 4.1% versus 4.4% (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.59-1.44), and recurrent stroke of any type or death from any cause, at 7.3% versus 6.8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.76-1.52).
In terms of safety, rates of major hemorrhage were low and almost identical between the groups, at 0.7% with apixaban and 0.8% for aspirin (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.29-3.51), and were similar for all-cause mortality, at 1.8% versus 1.2% (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.63-3.74).
Proportionately more patients treated with aspirin experienced symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, at 1.1% versus 0%.
The trial results generated a flurry of interest on Twitter.
Thomas Ford, MD, a vascular neurology fellow from Boston Medical Center, described the results as “disappointing,” although he was “curious to see if there was any signal of benefit in subgroup analyses.”
Shadi Yaghi, codirector of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., added that the trial “begs the question [as to] whether all device-detected atrial fibrillation warrants anticoagulation.”
Replying, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MPhil, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that he agrees with this interpretation.
“Maybe the issue is not with the concept of atrial cardiopathy but with the need to [anticoagulate] all patients with low [atrial fibrillation] burden or incidental [atrial fibrillation] after stroke.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The study drug was provided in kind by BMS-Pfizer, and ancillary funding for the NTproBNP assays was provided by Roche. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MUNICH, GERMANY – suggest findings from the ARCADIA trial.
The trial, which was halted early, randomized more than 1,000 ESUS patients with atrial cardiomyopathy to apixaban or placebo. Results showed that apixaban did not improve rates of recurrent stroke of any kind nor safety outcomes such as major hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.
The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Stroke Organisation Conference.
“We found no benefit of apixaban over aspirin in patients with ESUS who had evidence of atrial cardiopathy, at least based on the criteria in our trial,” said study presenter Hooman Kamel, MD, MS, vice chair for research and chief of neurocritical care in the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“It could be that this concept of thrombogenic atrial cardiopathy really isn’t present unless there is also atrial fibrillation,” he continued, suggesting alternatively that results may be caused by the “incorrect choice of atrial cardiopathy biomarkers or thresholds.”
“We chose these because they were clinically scalable and usable in a multicenter design,” Dr. Kamel explained, adding that there are a number of different proposed biomarkers that could be used in a future study.
The team will now perform secondary analyses over the coming months to “try to help sort out some of these potential explanations.”
Dr. Kamel concluded, however, that, “as of now, no strategy of anticoagulation has been found to be better than antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention after ESUS.”
Similar results
Approached for comment, session cochair Robin Lemmens, MD, PhD, a neurologist in the department of neurosciences, UZ Leuven (Belgium), noted that this is the third ESUS trial, after the NAVIGATE and RE-SPECT trials, and they have all showed “similar results.”
He said, however, that there “could be various reasons for that, and it’s good that they mentioned looking into the subgroups,” as has been done for those other studies.
“Most of these trials were initiated under the concept that most of these patients would have had underlying atrial fibrillation, and then of course there would have been a benefit for anticoagulation.”
“It turns out that that’s not the case,” Dr. Lemmens said, “probably because there’s a lot of heterogeneity in these patients,” with different reasons for developing stroke, “not just only potentially underlying atrial fibrillation.”
Session cochair Arthur Liesz, MD, PhD, Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research, University Hospital, LMU Munich, added that it is important to consider the definition of atrial cardiopathy in this context.
If this was limited only to structural cardiopathy, then this “was a rather small subpopulation in this study,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Liesz said that it could instead have been conducted with “more stringent cutoffs,” and could have considered blood biomarkers, “which then would have delivered more overlap with structural cardiopathy,” and allowed those patients to be analyzed separately.
Heterogeneous etiologies?
Dr. Kamel began by noting that the failure of NAVIGATE and RESPECT to show a benefit from anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ESUS led to the hypothesis that this is “perhaps due to heterogeneous underlying etiologies.”
Moreover, these etiologies “may require different types of antithrombotic therapy to best prevent recurrence, and one such underlying etiology may be atrial cardiopathy.”
He explained that several observational studies have found, in the absence of atrial fibrillation, associations between stroke and different markers of atrial cardiopathy and, “given the proven benefit of anticoagulation in preventing strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation, it seems plausible” that they may also benefit.
To investigate further, the team conducted ARCADIA, an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients aged 45 years and older from 185 sites in the United States and Canada with a clinical diagnosis of stroke that met the consensus criteria for ESUS.
They also were required to have undergone brain imaging to rule out hemorrhagic stroke, and to have a modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or less, indicating up to a moderately severe degree of disability.
They also had atrial cardiopathy, as determined by P-wave terminal force in V1 greater than 5,000mcV*ms on electrocardiography, serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels greater than 250 pg/mL, or a left atrium diameter of at least 3 cm/m2.
The patients were randomly assigned to apixaban 5 mg or 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin placebo, or apixaban placebo plus aspirin 81 mg daily. Those diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after randomization crossed over to open-label anticoagulant therapy at physician discretion.
Dr. Kamel reported that, in 2022, after enrollment of 1015 patients with a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, the trial was halted at the planned interim efficacy/futility analysis, adding that there were “no safety concerns.”
The apixaban and aspirin groups were well balanced in terms of their baseline characteristics. The mean age was 68 years, and 54% were female. Three-quarters of the participants were White; 21.1% were Black.
Prior stroke was reported in 19% of patients. Hypertension was common, in about 77%, and type 2 diabetes was seen in 31%. There were relatively few cases of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease.
The primary efficacy outcome of recurrent stroke of any type occurred in 4.4% of both patients treated with apixaban and those given aspirin, at a hazard ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.55). Similar findings were seen when looking individually at ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, and stroke of undetermined type.
There was also no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of recurrent ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, at 4.1% versus 4.4% (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.59-1.44), and recurrent stroke of any type or death from any cause, at 7.3% versus 6.8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.76-1.52).
In terms of safety, rates of major hemorrhage were low and almost identical between the groups, at 0.7% with apixaban and 0.8% for aspirin (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.29-3.51), and were similar for all-cause mortality, at 1.8% versus 1.2% (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.63-3.74).
Proportionately more patients treated with aspirin experienced symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, at 1.1% versus 0%.
The trial results generated a flurry of interest on Twitter.
Thomas Ford, MD, a vascular neurology fellow from Boston Medical Center, described the results as “disappointing,” although he was “curious to see if there was any signal of benefit in subgroup analyses.”
Shadi Yaghi, codirector of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., added that the trial “begs the question [as to] whether all device-detected atrial fibrillation warrants anticoagulation.”
Replying, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MPhil, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that he agrees with this interpretation.
“Maybe the issue is not with the concept of atrial cardiopathy but with the need to [anticoagulate] all patients with low [atrial fibrillation] burden or incidental [atrial fibrillation] after stroke.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The study drug was provided in kind by BMS-Pfizer, and ancillary funding for the NTproBNP assays was provided by Roche. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MUNICH, GERMANY – suggest findings from the ARCADIA trial.
The trial, which was halted early, randomized more than 1,000 ESUS patients with atrial cardiomyopathy to apixaban or placebo. Results showed that apixaban did not improve rates of recurrent stroke of any kind nor safety outcomes such as major hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.
The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Stroke Organisation Conference.
“We found no benefit of apixaban over aspirin in patients with ESUS who had evidence of atrial cardiopathy, at least based on the criteria in our trial,” said study presenter Hooman Kamel, MD, MS, vice chair for research and chief of neurocritical care in the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“It could be that this concept of thrombogenic atrial cardiopathy really isn’t present unless there is also atrial fibrillation,” he continued, suggesting alternatively that results may be caused by the “incorrect choice of atrial cardiopathy biomarkers or thresholds.”
“We chose these because they were clinically scalable and usable in a multicenter design,” Dr. Kamel explained, adding that there are a number of different proposed biomarkers that could be used in a future study.
The team will now perform secondary analyses over the coming months to “try to help sort out some of these potential explanations.”
Dr. Kamel concluded, however, that, “as of now, no strategy of anticoagulation has been found to be better than antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention after ESUS.”
Similar results
Approached for comment, session cochair Robin Lemmens, MD, PhD, a neurologist in the department of neurosciences, UZ Leuven (Belgium), noted that this is the third ESUS trial, after the NAVIGATE and RE-SPECT trials, and they have all showed “similar results.”
He said, however, that there “could be various reasons for that, and it’s good that they mentioned looking into the subgroups,” as has been done for those other studies.
“Most of these trials were initiated under the concept that most of these patients would have had underlying atrial fibrillation, and then of course there would have been a benefit for anticoagulation.”
“It turns out that that’s not the case,” Dr. Lemmens said, “probably because there’s a lot of heterogeneity in these patients,” with different reasons for developing stroke, “not just only potentially underlying atrial fibrillation.”
Session cochair Arthur Liesz, MD, PhD, Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research, University Hospital, LMU Munich, added that it is important to consider the definition of atrial cardiopathy in this context.
If this was limited only to structural cardiopathy, then this “was a rather small subpopulation in this study,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Liesz said that it could instead have been conducted with “more stringent cutoffs,” and could have considered blood biomarkers, “which then would have delivered more overlap with structural cardiopathy,” and allowed those patients to be analyzed separately.
Heterogeneous etiologies?
Dr. Kamel began by noting that the failure of NAVIGATE and RESPECT to show a benefit from anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ESUS led to the hypothesis that this is “perhaps due to heterogeneous underlying etiologies.”
Moreover, these etiologies “may require different types of antithrombotic therapy to best prevent recurrence, and one such underlying etiology may be atrial cardiopathy.”
He explained that several observational studies have found, in the absence of atrial fibrillation, associations between stroke and different markers of atrial cardiopathy and, “given the proven benefit of anticoagulation in preventing strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation, it seems plausible” that they may also benefit.
To investigate further, the team conducted ARCADIA, an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients aged 45 years and older from 185 sites in the United States and Canada with a clinical diagnosis of stroke that met the consensus criteria for ESUS.
They also were required to have undergone brain imaging to rule out hemorrhagic stroke, and to have a modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or less, indicating up to a moderately severe degree of disability.
They also had atrial cardiopathy, as determined by P-wave terminal force in V1 greater than 5,000mcV*ms on electrocardiography, serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels greater than 250 pg/mL, or a left atrium diameter of at least 3 cm/m2.
The patients were randomly assigned to apixaban 5 mg or 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin placebo, or apixaban placebo plus aspirin 81 mg daily. Those diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after randomization crossed over to open-label anticoagulant therapy at physician discretion.
Dr. Kamel reported that, in 2022, after enrollment of 1015 patients with a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, the trial was halted at the planned interim efficacy/futility analysis, adding that there were “no safety concerns.”
The apixaban and aspirin groups were well balanced in terms of their baseline characteristics. The mean age was 68 years, and 54% were female. Three-quarters of the participants were White; 21.1% were Black.
Prior stroke was reported in 19% of patients. Hypertension was common, in about 77%, and type 2 diabetes was seen in 31%. There were relatively few cases of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease.
The primary efficacy outcome of recurrent stroke of any type occurred in 4.4% of both patients treated with apixaban and those given aspirin, at a hazard ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.55). Similar findings were seen when looking individually at ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, and stroke of undetermined type.
There was also no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of recurrent ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, at 4.1% versus 4.4% (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.59-1.44), and recurrent stroke of any type or death from any cause, at 7.3% versus 6.8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.76-1.52).
In terms of safety, rates of major hemorrhage were low and almost identical between the groups, at 0.7% with apixaban and 0.8% for aspirin (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.29-3.51), and were similar for all-cause mortality, at 1.8% versus 1.2% (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.63-3.74).
Proportionately more patients treated with aspirin experienced symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, at 1.1% versus 0%.
The trial results generated a flurry of interest on Twitter.
Thomas Ford, MD, a vascular neurology fellow from Boston Medical Center, described the results as “disappointing,” although he was “curious to see if there was any signal of benefit in subgroup analyses.”
Shadi Yaghi, codirector of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., added that the trial “begs the question [as to] whether all device-detected atrial fibrillation warrants anticoagulation.”
Replying, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MPhil, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that he agrees with this interpretation.
“Maybe the issue is not with the concept of atrial cardiopathy but with the need to [anticoagulate] all patients with low [atrial fibrillation] burden or incidental [atrial fibrillation] after stroke.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The study drug was provided in kind by BMS-Pfizer, and ancillary funding for the NTproBNP assays was provided by Roche. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
No added benefit from revascularization in low-risk CAS
MUNICH – , suggests a planned interim analysis of ECST-2.
Almost 430 patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and a Carotid Artery Risk (CAR) score less than 20% were randomly assigned to OMT alone or OMT plus revascularization with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting.
The study, which was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, was stopped early because of slow recruitment.
Nevertheless, the current results showed that there was no significant difference at 2 years between the treatment groups in the rate of a composite endpoint, as well as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, and periprocedural death.
In other words, “there was no evidence of benefit at 2 years from additional carotid revascularization” in patients with carotid stenosis who had a low to intermediate predicted stroke risk, said study presenter Paul Nederkoorn, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam.
He added, however, that the complete 2 years will include additional analyses, including an analysis of silent infarcts on MRI, which may affect the results, and that longer clinical follow-up is required.
Future work will include the design and validation of a novel stroke risk prediction tool that will include MRI plaque imaging and will allow individualized patient selection for revascularization, as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis, he noted.
Conclusions ‘difficult’
Session co-chair Peter Kelly, MD, professor of neurology at Mater University Hospital/University College Dublin, and president-elect of the European Stroke Association, described the findings as “interesting” and that it was “great to see them.”
“I’m sure we’ll be discussing these results for a while,” he added.
But co-chair Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist in the Stroke Unit, department of neurology, Oslo University Hospital, said that it’s “difficult to draw firm conclusions from the trial.”
The patients were highly selected, recruitment was “perhaps a bit too slow,” and the study was probably conducted over too many sites, she said in an interview.
Dr. Sandset also noted that the options available for OMT have changed over the course of the study, as well as the overall approach to management.
“We are more aware of how we should treat” these patients, and “we’re probably a bit more aggressive,” which will have shifted the outcomes in the comparator arm as the study progressed.
“That is the challenge of doing these trials that take many years to run – our practice changes.”
‘Old evidence’
In his presentation, Dr. Nederkoorn pointed out that, while the current guidelines for CEA are “robust,” they are based on “old evidence” from trials conducted 20-30 years ago.
During that time, he said, medical treatment has improved significantly, and the risk for stroke has approximately halved. Yet the decision to perform CEA is still largely based on the degree of stenosis and the patient’s symptom status.
Dr. Nederkoorn suggested, however, that factors such as plaque ulceration and patient characteristics and comorbidities might influence the risk-benefit ratio for revascularization.
The current trial was therefore established to test the hypothesis that patients with carotid stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and a low to intermediate risk of stroke will not benefit from additional carotid revascularization on top of optimized medical therapy.
The team conducted a prospective, multicenter, open clinical trial in which patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned to revascularization plus OMT or OMT alone.
Dr. Nederkoorn explained that a low to intermediate 5-year risk for stroke was established using the CAR score less than 20%.
This is based on a range of parameters, including the sex and age of the patient, degree of stenosis, the type of and time since the event, and the presence of comorbidities, among other factors.
He said that the data was originally derived from the NASCET trial, which was published in 1998, and the first ECST trial, published in the same year.
Since then, the risk of ipsilateral stroke has “strongly declined,” Dr. Nederkoorn said, and so the CAR score was recalibrated to reflect the likely benefit of current OMT.
For the trial, OMT included antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications, and dietary changes, alongside antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation, if indicated, to achieve predefined, guideline-led lipid and blood pressure targets.
Revascularization included CEA and coronary artery stenting in selected patients and was recommended to be performed within 2 weeks of randomization in symptomatic patients and within 4 weeks in asymptomatic patients.
When the trial started in 2012, the intention was to recruit 2,000 patients, with a planned interim analysis after enrollment of 320 patients.
However, recruitment was suspended in 2019, with 429 patients having been enrolled, as it was clear that achieving a cohort of 2,000 patients was “not practical without a change in the trial design” to include MRI plaque imaging and without further funding.
Dr. Nederkoorn showed that the baseline characteristics of the OMT and revascularization plus OMT groups were comparable. The average age of the patients in the groups was 71-72 years, and 31% were female.
Symptomatic disease was present in about 40% of patients, and about 76% had hypertension. Type 2 diabetes was reported in roughly one-quarter of the patients.
There was no difference in the time from randomization to the revascularization procedure between patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic disease.
Moving to the primary outcome, which was a composite of periprocedural death within 90 days of randomization and clinically manifest stroke or myocardial infarction at 2 years, Dr. Nederkoorn showed that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups.
Despite a suggestion that patients undergoing revascularization experienced “more harm” in the initial follow-up period, particularly in patients with a CAR score greater than 10%, the event curves met at around 18 months.
Overall, the hazard ratio between revascularization plus OMT versus OMT alone was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.76, P = .90).
Breaking down the composite endpoint, there was a numerically lower rate of any stroke with OMT alone, compared with revascularization plus OMT over the study period, but again the difference was not significant at 2 years, at a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.32-1.42, P = .30).
There was only one case of periprocedural death, in the revascularization arm. Although myocardial infarction was numerically twice as likely with OMT alone, compared with the combined intervention arm, the difference was not significant, at a hazard ratio of 2.00 (95% CI, 0.68-5.84, P = .21).
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Swiss National Science Foundation, The Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research, and the Leeds Neurology Foundation. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MUNICH – , suggests a planned interim analysis of ECST-2.
Almost 430 patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and a Carotid Artery Risk (CAR) score less than 20% were randomly assigned to OMT alone or OMT plus revascularization with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting.
The study, which was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, was stopped early because of slow recruitment.
Nevertheless, the current results showed that there was no significant difference at 2 years between the treatment groups in the rate of a composite endpoint, as well as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, and periprocedural death.
In other words, “there was no evidence of benefit at 2 years from additional carotid revascularization” in patients with carotid stenosis who had a low to intermediate predicted stroke risk, said study presenter Paul Nederkoorn, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam.
He added, however, that the complete 2 years will include additional analyses, including an analysis of silent infarcts on MRI, which may affect the results, and that longer clinical follow-up is required.
Future work will include the design and validation of a novel stroke risk prediction tool that will include MRI plaque imaging and will allow individualized patient selection for revascularization, as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis, he noted.
Conclusions ‘difficult’
Session co-chair Peter Kelly, MD, professor of neurology at Mater University Hospital/University College Dublin, and president-elect of the European Stroke Association, described the findings as “interesting” and that it was “great to see them.”
“I’m sure we’ll be discussing these results for a while,” he added.
But co-chair Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist in the Stroke Unit, department of neurology, Oslo University Hospital, said that it’s “difficult to draw firm conclusions from the trial.”
The patients were highly selected, recruitment was “perhaps a bit too slow,” and the study was probably conducted over too many sites, she said in an interview.
Dr. Sandset also noted that the options available for OMT have changed over the course of the study, as well as the overall approach to management.
“We are more aware of how we should treat” these patients, and “we’re probably a bit more aggressive,” which will have shifted the outcomes in the comparator arm as the study progressed.
“That is the challenge of doing these trials that take many years to run – our practice changes.”
‘Old evidence’
In his presentation, Dr. Nederkoorn pointed out that, while the current guidelines for CEA are “robust,” they are based on “old evidence” from trials conducted 20-30 years ago.
During that time, he said, medical treatment has improved significantly, and the risk for stroke has approximately halved. Yet the decision to perform CEA is still largely based on the degree of stenosis and the patient’s symptom status.
Dr. Nederkoorn suggested, however, that factors such as plaque ulceration and patient characteristics and comorbidities might influence the risk-benefit ratio for revascularization.
The current trial was therefore established to test the hypothesis that patients with carotid stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and a low to intermediate risk of stroke will not benefit from additional carotid revascularization on top of optimized medical therapy.
The team conducted a prospective, multicenter, open clinical trial in which patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned to revascularization plus OMT or OMT alone.
Dr. Nederkoorn explained that a low to intermediate 5-year risk for stroke was established using the CAR score less than 20%.
This is based on a range of parameters, including the sex and age of the patient, degree of stenosis, the type of and time since the event, and the presence of comorbidities, among other factors.
He said that the data was originally derived from the NASCET trial, which was published in 1998, and the first ECST trial, published in the same year.
Since then, the risk of ipsilateral stroke has “strongly declined,” Dr. Nederkoorn said, and so the CAR score was recalibrated to reflect the likely benefit of current OMT.
For the trial, OMT included antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications, and dietary changes, alongside antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation, if indicated, to achieve predefined, guideline-led lipid and blood pressure targets.
Revascularization included CEA and coronary artery stenting in selected patients and was recommended to be performed within 2 weeks of randomization in symptomatic patients and within 4 weeks in asymptomatic patients.
When the trial started in 2012, the intention was to recruit 2,000 patients, with a planned interim analysis after enrollment of 320 patients.
However, recruitment was suspended in 2019, with 429 patients having been enrolled, as it was clear that achieving a cohort of 2,000 patients was “not practical without a change in the trial design” to include MRI plaque imaging and without further funding.
Dr. Nederkoorn showed that the baseline characteristics of the OMT and revascularization plus OMT groups were comparable. The average age of the patients in the groups was 71-72 years, and 31% were female.
Symptomatic disease was present in about 40% of patients, and about 76% had hypertension. Type 2 diabetes was reported in roughly one-quarter of the patients.
There was no difference in the time from randomization to the revascularization procedure between patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic disease.
Moving to the primary outcome, which was a composite of periprocedural death within 90 days of randomization and clinically manifest stroke or myocardial infarction at 2 years, Dr. Nederkoorn showed that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups.
Despite a suggestion that patients undergoing revascularization experienced “more harm” in the initial follow-up period, particularly in patients with a CAR score greater than 10%, the event curves met at around 18 months.
Overall, the hazard ratio between revascularization plus OMT versus OMT alone was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.76, P = .90).
Breaking down the composite endpoint, there was a numerically lower rate of any stroke with OMT alone, compared with revascularization plus OMT over the study period, but again the difference was not significant at 2 years, at a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.32-1.42, P = .30).
There was only one case of periprocedural death, in the revascularization arm. Although myocardial infarction was numerically twice as likely with OMT alone, compared with the combined intervention arm, the difference was not significant, at a hazard ratio of 2.00 (95% CI, 0.68-5.84, P = .21).
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Swiss National Science Foundation, The Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research, and the Leeds Neurology Foundation. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MUNICH – , suggests a planned interim analysis of ECST-2.
Almost 430 patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and a Carotid Artery Risk (CAR) score less than 20% were randomly assigned to OMT alone or OMT plus revascularization with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting.
The study, which was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, was stopped early because of slow recruitment.
Nevertheless, the current results showed that there was no significant difference at 2 years between the treatment groups in the rate of a composite endpoint, as well as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, and periprocedural death.
In other words, “there was no evidence of benefit at 2 years from additional carotid revascularization” in patients with carotid stenosis who had a low to intermediate predicted stroke risk, said study presenter Paul Nederkoorn, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam.
He added, however, that the complete 2 years will include additional analyses, including an analysis of silent infarcts on MRI, which may affect the results, and that longer clinical follow-up is required.
Future work will include the design and validation of a novel stroke risk prediction tool that will include MRI plaque imaging and will allow individualized patient selection for revascularization, as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis, he noted.
Conclusions ‘difficult’
Session co-chair Peter Kelly, MD, professor of neurology at Mater University Hospital/University College Dublin, and president-elect of the European Stroke Association, described the findings as “interesting” and that it was “great to see them.”
“I’m sure we’ll be discussing these results for a while,” he added.
But co-chair Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist in the Stroke Unit, department of neurology, Oslo University Hospital, said that it’s “difficult to draw firm conclusions from the trial.”
The patients were highly selected, recruitment was “perhaps a bit too slow,” and the study was probably conducted over too many sites, she said in an interview.
Dr. Sandset also noted that the options available for OMT have changed over the course of the study, as well as the overall approach to management.
“We are more aware of how we should treat” these patients, and “we’re probably a bit more aggressive,” which will have shifted the outcomes in the comparator arm as the study progressed.
“That is the challenge of doing these trials that take many years to run – our practice changes.”
‘Old evidence’
In his presentation, Dr. Nederkoorn pointed out that, while the current guidelines for CEA are “robust,” they are based on “old evidence” from trials conducted 20-30 years ago.
During that time, he said, medical treatment has improved significantly, and the risk for stroke has approximately halved. Yet the decision to perform CEA is still largely based on the degree of stenosis and the patient’s symptom status.
Dr. Nederkoorn suggested, however, that factors such as plaque ulceration and patient characteristics and comorbidities might influence the risk-benefit ratio for revascularization.
The current trial was therefore established to test the hypothesis that patients with carotid stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and a low to intermediate risk of stroke will not benefit from additional carotid revascularization on top of optimized medical therapy.
The team conducted a prospective, multicenter, open clinical trial in which patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned to revascularization plus OMT or OMT alone.
Dr. Nederkoorn explained that a low to intermediate 5-year risk for stroke was established using the CAR score less than 20%.
This is based on a range of parameters, including the sex and age of the patient, degree of stenosis, the type of and time since the event, and the presence of comorbidities, among other factors.
He said that the data was originally derived from the NASCET trial, which was published in 1998, and the first ECST trial, published in the same year.
Since then, the risk of ipsilateral stroke has “strongly declined,” Dr. Nederkoorn said, and so the CAR score was recalibrated to reflect the likely benefit of current OMT.
For the trial, OMT included antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications, and dietary changes, alongside antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation, if indicated, to achieve predefined, guideline-led lipid and blood pressure targets.
Revascularization included CEA and coronary artery stenting in selected patients and was recommended to be performed within 2 weeks of randomization in symptomatic patients and within 4 weeks in asymptomatic patients.
When the trial started in 2012, the intention was to recruit 2,000 patients, with a planned interim analysis after enrollment of 320 patients.
However, recruitment was suspended in 2019, with 429 patients having been enrolled, as it was clear that achieving a cohort of 2,000 patients was “not practical without a change in the trial design” to include MRI plaque imaging and without further funding.
Dr. Nederkoorn showed that the baseline characteristics of the OMT and revascularization plus OMT groups were comparable. The average age of the patients in the groups was 71-72 years, and 31% were female.
Symptomatic disease was present in about 40% of patients, and about 76% had hypertension. Type 2 diabetes was reported in roughly one-quarter of the patients.
There was no difference in the time from randomization to the revascularization procedure between patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic disease.
Moving to the primary outcome, which was a composite of periprocedural death within 90 days of randomization and clinically manifest stroke or myocardial infarction at 2 years, Dr. Nederkoorn showed that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups.
Despite a suggestion that patients undergoing revascularization experienced “more harm” in the initial follow-up period, particularly in patients with a CAR score greater than 10%, the event curves met at around 18 months.
Overall, the hazard ratio between revascularization plus OMT versus OMT alone was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.76, P = .90).
Breaking down the composite endpoint, there was a numerically lower rate of any stroke with OMT alone, compared with revascularization plus OMT over the study period, but again the difference was not significant at 2 years, at a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.32-1.42, P = .30).
There was only one case of periprocedural death, in the revascularization arm. Although myocardial infarction was numerically twice as likely with OMT alone, compared with the combined intervention arm, the difference was not significant, at a hazard ratio of 2.00 (95% CI, 0.68-5.84, P = .21).
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Swiss National Science Foundation, The Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research, and the Leeds Neurology Foundation. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
Care bundle improves outcome in ICH: INTERACT3
The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.
“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.
“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.
‘Game changer’
“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”
Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.
“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.
The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”
The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.
The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.
Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.
The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.
Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.
The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).
Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).
NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability
“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”
The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.
Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.
“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”
Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.
He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.
“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”
Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.
“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.
The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.
‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity
Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.
“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”
In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”
Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.
“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.
“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.
‘Game changer’
“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”
Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.
“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.
The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”
The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.
The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.
Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.
The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.
Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.
The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).
Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).
NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability
“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”
The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.
Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.
“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”
Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.
He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.
“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”
Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.
“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.
The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.
‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity
Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.
“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”
In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”
Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.
“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.
“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.
‘Game changer’
“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”
Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.
“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.
The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”
The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.
The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.
Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.
The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.
Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.
The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).
Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).
NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability
“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”
The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.
Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.
“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”
Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.
He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.
“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”
Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.
“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.
The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.
‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity
Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.
“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”
In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”
Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESO 2023
Earlier anticoagulation safe in stroke with AFib: ELAN
, a new study suggests.
The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.
“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.
“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.
Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”
Dr. Fischer presented the results of the ELAN trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Munich. The trial was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
He explained that patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke who are found to have atrial fibrillation need to be started on anticoagulation to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke. But there are no clear guidelines on when to start anticoagulation in these patients at present, with concerns that starting very early may increase the risk for hemorrhagic transformation and ICH.
Based on observations that patients with larger strokes have a higher risk for ICH in the early post-stroke period, some guidelines advise different times for starting anticoagulation for different stroke severities: 1 day for a transient ischemic attack, 3 days for a minor stroke, 6 days for a moderate stroke, and 12 days for a severe stroke – known as the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-day rule.
“But this is not based on evidence – just on expert opinion,” Dr. Fischer noted. “The ELAN trial was conducted to obtain more solid information on optimal timing for starting anticoagulation and whether we can safely start a DOAC earlier than these guidelines currently advise.”
For the trial, which was conducted in 15 countries, 2,013 patients with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have AFib were randomly selected to start DOAC treatment earlier or later.
The later-treatment strategy followed the current approach of starting treatment at day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke, whereas the earlier-treatment group started DOAC treatment within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke.
In terms of stroke severity, which was defined on imaging-based criteria, 37% of patients had a minor stroke, 40% had a moderate stroke, and 23% had a major stroke.
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization.
Results showed that this occurred in 2.9% in the early-treatment group and 4.1% in the later-treatment group (risk difference, –1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –2.84-0.47) by 30 days.
Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 1.4% in the early-treatment group and 2.5% in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.07). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in two participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.
The rates of the outcomes increased only slightly more at 90 days than at 30 days, “findings that suggest there was not an excessive risk associated with early anticoagulation through that period,” the researchers report in the NEJM paper.
“Early treatment initiation can therefore be supported if indicated or if desired,” they conclude.
“The most important finding was that among 2,000 patients randomized, there was a very low rate of bleeding complications and no increase in any bleeding complication in the early DOAC group. This has been a major worry about starting anticoagulation early,” Dr. Fischer commented.
“These are very practical findings in that we can keep things simple,” Dr. Dawson added. “If the patient has a big stroke, anticoagulation with a DOAC can now be started at 6 days. For everyone else, we can start DOAC treatment as soon as possible without fear of causing harm. So, we can now confidently give patients with a minor or moderate stroke, as defined by imaging, a beneficial treatment as soon as we establish they are having an ischemic stroke and have AFib.”
Dr. Dawson pointed out that about 25% of patients with ischemic stroke are found to have AFib on admission ECG, and in another 4%-5%, AFib is found in the first 48 hours. “These are the patients we are targeting in this study.”
The researchers note that the trial did not have a statistical superiority or noninferiority design but rather aimed to estimate the treatment effects of early initiation versus later initiation of DOACs.
“This trial was slightly different in that we weren’t testing a strict statistical hypothesis because we didn’t have any data with which to formulate what sort of effect size to aim for, so we performed a qualitative trial to look at what the event rates were with the two approaches,” Dr. Fischer explained. “Our main findings are that ICH rates were not increased with early DOAC treatment and that ischemic event rates were numerically reduced, but because we didn’t have strict statistical limits, we can only say this is a high probability but not a certainty.”
Dr. Dawson added: “We can say from these results that there is a high level of probability that early DOAC treatment does not cause harm and a reasonable probability that it reduces risks of a recurrent stroke or other ischemic event.”
The researchers give an estimate of the effect size for the primary composite endpoint, which combines the major ischemic and bleeding events, ranging from a 2.8% lower risk to a 0.5% higher risk with early DOAC treatment.
“So, it is very likely that the composite endpoint would be lower,” Dr. Dawson said.
Dr. Fischer noted that a previous study (TIMING) tried to address the issue of earlier versus later anticoagulation in these patients but was stopped early after 880 patients had been enrolled because of slow recruitment.
“Results from this study failed to show superiority of early versus late DOAC treatment but they did suggest noninferiority, and they also found no increase in major bleeding complications, which is an added reassurance,” he commented.
Another trial looking at early versus late anticoagulation in these patients, OPTIMAS, is ongoing in the United Kingdom and is aiming to randomize 3,500 patients.
Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity
In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”
He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.
Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.
“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.
“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.
But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study suggests.
The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.
“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.
“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.
Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”
Dr. Fischer presented the results of the ELAN trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Munich. The trial was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
He explained that patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke who are found to have atrial fibrillation need to be started on anticoagulation to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke. But there are no clear guidelines on when to start anticoagulation in these patients at present, with concerns that starting very early may increase the risk for hemorrhagic transformation and ICH.
Based on observations that patients with larger strokes have a higher risk for ICH in the early post-stroke period, some guidelines advise different times for starting anticoagulation for different stroke severities: 1 day for a transient ischemic attack, 3 days for a minor stroke, 6 days for a moderate stroke, and 12 days for a severe stroke – known as the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-day rule.
“But this is not based on evidence – just on expert opinion,” Dr. Fischer noted. “The ELAN trial was conducted to obtain more solid information on optimal timing for starting anticoagulation and whether we can safely start a DOAC earlier than these guidelines currently advise.”
For the trial, which was conducted in 15 countries, 2,013 patients with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have AFib were randomly selected to start DOAC treatment earlier or later.
The later-treatment strategy followed the current approach of starting treatment at day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke, whereas the earlier-treatment group started DOAC treatment within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke.
In terms of stroke severity, which was defined on imaging-based criteria, 37% of patients had a minor stroke, 40% had a moderate stroke, and 23% had a major stroke.
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization.
Results showed that this occurred in 2.9% in the early-treatment group and 4.1% in the later-treatment group (risk difference, –1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –2.84-0.47) by 30 days.
Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 1.4% in the early-treatment group and 2.5% in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.07). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in two participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.
The rates of the outcomes increased only slightly more at 90 days than at 30 days, “findings that suggest there was not an excessive risk associated with early anticoagulation through that period,” the researchers report in the NEJM paper.
“Early treatment initiation can therefore be supported if indicated or if desired,” they conclude.
“The most important finding was that among 2,000 patients randomized, there was a very low rate of bleeding complications and no increase in any bleeding complication in the early DOAC group. This has been a major worry about starting anticoagulation early,” Dr. Fischer commented.
“These are very practical findings in that we can keep things simple,” Dr. Dawson added. “If the patient has a big stroke, anticoagulation with a DOAC can now be started at 6 days. For everyone else, we can start DOAC treatment as soon as possible without fear of causing harm. So, we can now confidently give patients with a minor or moderate stroke, as defined by imaging, a beneficial treatment as soon as we establish they are having an ischemic stroke and have AFib.”
Dr. Dawson pointed out that about 25% of patients with ischemic stroke are found to have AFib on admission ECG, and in another 4%-5%, AFib is found in the first 48 hours. “These are the patients we are targeting in this study.”
The researchers note that the trial did not have a statistical superiority or noninferiority design but rather aimed to estimate the treatment effects of early initiation versus later initiation of DOACs.
“This trial was slightly different in that we weren’t testing a strict statistical hypothesis because we didn’t have any data with which to formulate what sort of effect size to aim for, so we performed a qualitative trial to look at what the event rates were with the two approaches,” Dr. Fischer explained. “Our main findings are that ICH rates were not increased with early DOAC treatment and that ischemic event rates were numerically reduced, but because we didn’t have strict statistical limits, we can only say this is a high probability but not a certainty.”
Dr. Dawson added: “We can say from these results that there is a high level of probability that early DOAC treatment does not cause harm and a reasonable probability that it reduces risks of a recurrent stroke or other ischemic event.”
The researchers give an estimate of the effect size for the primary composite endpoint, which combines the major ischemic and bleeding events, ranging from a 2.8% lower risk to a 0.5% higher risk with early DOAC treatment.
“So, it is very likely that the composite endpoint would be lower,” Dr. Dawson said.
Dr. Fischer noted that a previous study (TIMING) tried to address the issue of earlier versus later anticoagulation in these patients but was stopped early after 880 patients had been enrolled because of slow recruitment.
“Results from this study failed to show superiority of early versus late DOAC treatment but they did suggest noninferiority, and they also found no increase in major bleeding complications, which is an added reassurance,” he commented.
Another trial looking at early versus late anticoagulation in these patients, OPTIMAS, is ongoing in the United Kingdom and is aiming to randomize 3,500 patients.
Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity
In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”
He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.
Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.
“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.
“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.
But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study suggests.
The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.
“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.
“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.
Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”
Dr. Fischer presented the results of the ELAN trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Munich. The trial was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
He explained that patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke who are found to have atrial fibrillation need to be started on anticoagulation to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke. But there are no clear guidelines on when to start anticoagulation in these patients at present, with concerns that starting very early may increase the risk for hemorrhagic transformation and ICH.
Based on observations that patients with larger strokes have a higher risk for ICH in the early post-stroke period, some guidelines advise different times for starting anticoagulation for different stroke severities: 1 day for a transient ischemic attack, 3 days for a minor stroke, 6 days for a moderate stroke, and 12 days for a severe stroke – known as the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-day rule.
“But this is not based on evidence – just on expert opinion,” Dr. Fischer noted. “The ELAN trial was conducted to obtain more solid information on optimal timing for starting anticoagulation and whether we can safely start a DOAC earlier than these guidelines currently advise.”
For the trial, which was conducted in 15 countries, 2,013 patients with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have AFib were randomly selected to start DOAC treatment earlier or later.
The later-treatment strategy followed the current approach of starting treatment at day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke, whereas the earlier-treatment group started DOAC treatment within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke.
In terms of stroke severity, which was defined on imaging-based criteria, 37% of patients had a minor stroke, 40% had a moderate stroke, and 23% had a major stroke.
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization.
Results showed that this occurred in 2.9% in the early-treatment group and 4.1% in the later-treatment group (risk difference, –1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –2.84-0.47) by 30 days.
Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 1.4% in the early-treatment group and 2.5% in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.07). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in two participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.
The rates of the outcomes increased only slightly more at 90 days than at 30 days, “findings that suggest there was not an excessive risk associated with early anticoagulation through that period,” the researchers report in the NEJM paper.
“Early treatment initiation can therefore be supported if indicated or if desired,” they conclude.
“The most important finding was that among 2,000 patients randomized, there was a very low rate of bleeding complications and no increase in any bleeding complication in the early DOAC group. This has been a major worry about starting anticoagulation early,” Dr. Fischer commented.
“These are very practical findings in that we can keep things simple,” Dr. Dawson added. “If the patient has a big stroke, anticoagulation with a DOAC can now be started at 6 days. For everyone else, we can start DOAC treatment as soon as possible without fear of causing harm. So, we can now confidently give patients with a minor or moderate stroke, as defined by imaging, a beneficial treatment as soon as we establish they are having an ischemic stroke and have AFib.”
Dr. Dawson pointed out that about 25% of patients with ischemic stroke are found to have AFib on admission ECG, and in another 4%-5%, AFib is found in the first 48 hours. “These are the patients we are targeting in this study.”
The researchers note that the trial did not have a statistical superiority or noninferiority design but rather aimed to estimate the treatment effects of early initiation versus later initiation of DOACs.
“This trial was slightly different in that we weren’t testing a strict statistical hypothesis because we didn’t have any data with which to formulate what sort of effect size to aim for, so we performed a qualitative trial to look at what the event rates were with the two approaches,” Dr. Fischer explained. “Our main findings are that ICH rates were not increased with early DOAC treatment and that ischemic event rates were numerically reduced, but because we didn’t have strict statistical limits, we can only say this is a high probability but not a certainty.”
Dr. Dawson added: “We can say from these results that there is a high level of probability that early DOAC treatment does not cause harm and a reasonable probability that it reduces risks of a recurrent stroke or other ischemic event.”
The researchers give an estimate of the effect size for the primary composite endpoint, which combines the major ischemic and bleeding events, ranging from a 2.8% lower risk to a 0.5% higher risk with early DOAC treatment.
“So, it is very likely that the composite endpoint would be lower,” Dr. Dawson said.
Dr. Fischer noted that a previous study (TIMING) tried to address the issue of earlier versus later anticoagulation in these patients but was stopped early after 880 patients had been enrolled because of slow recruitment.
“Results from this study failed to show superiority of early versus late DOAC treatment but they did suggest noninferiority, and they also found no increase in major bleeding complications, which is an added reassurance,” he commented.
Another trial looking at early versus late anticoagulation in these patients, OPTIMAS, is ongoing in the United Kingdom and is aiming to randomize 3,500 patients.
Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity
In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”
He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.
Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.
“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.
“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.
But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
AHA urges action against racial inequities in stroke care
Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.
“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.
The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.
It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.
Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.
They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.
For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.
However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.
In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.
“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.
Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.
“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.
“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.
Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.
“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.
The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.
It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.
Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.
They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.
For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.
However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.
In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.
“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.
Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.
“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.
“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.
Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.
“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.
The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.
It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.
Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.
They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.
For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.
However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.
In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.
“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.
Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.
“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.
“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.
Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM STROKE
A call to revamp revascularization trial endpoints
The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.
Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.
In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Quality of life as a validation tool
As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”
Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”
He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
Shortcomings with traditional endpoints
Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.
But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”
He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.
“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”
MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”
One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”
And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”
Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.
Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.
In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Quality of life as a validation tool
As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”
Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”
He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
Shortcomings with traditional endpoints
Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.
But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”
He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.
“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”
MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”
One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”
And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”
Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.
Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.
In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Quality of life as a validation tool
As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”
Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”
He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
Shortcomings with traditional endpoints
Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.
But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”
He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.
“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”
MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”
One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”
And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”
Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Stroke scale cutoff might not be ideal guide for ordering CTA and detecting large vessel occlusions
BOSTON – (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.
For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.
“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
Large prospective dataset
The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.
“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.
After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.
“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.
Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.
In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.
The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
No consistent cutoff
In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”
These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
Reconsidering protocols
Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.
A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.
The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.
“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”
It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.
For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.
One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.
“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.
If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.
Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
BOSTON – (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.
For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.
“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
Large prospective dataset
The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.
“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.
After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.
“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.
Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.
In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.
The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
No consistent cutoff
In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”
These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
Reconsidering protocols
Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.
A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.
The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.
“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”
It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.
For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.
One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.
“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.
If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.
Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
BOSTON – (LVO), according to large body of data presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
If the goal is not to miss any LVOs, there is no NIHSS score below which these do not occur, according to Theresa Sevilis, DO, regional medical director, TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Fla.
For example, her evaluation of a large and nationally representative dataset shows that more than 10% of the LVOs eventually identified and accepted for intervention would be missed with a cutoff of NIHSS score of 6 or higher. Moving the cutoff NIHSS score to 4 or greater, 6% of LVOs among the 23,166 strokes evaluated would have gone undetected.
“The current guidelines do not address low NIHSS score largely due to a paucity of data,” according to Dr. Sevilis, who showed data indicating that there is great variation among institutions in regard to ordering computed tomography angiography (CTA). She indicated that CTA is the current imaging standard for detecting LVO.
Large prospective dataset
The data for this study were derived from the TeleCare database, which captures acute stroke consultations in the emergency departments in 227 facilities in 27 states. Stroke consultations over a 6-month period from July through December 2021 were evaluated. The prospectively collected data were subjected to a multivariate analysis to determine the odds ratio for a CTA performed and LVO found at each NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Scores 6 or above served as the reference.
“Only consults performed within 24 hours [of presentation] were included,” Dr. Sevilis said.
After excluding cases in which no NIHSS score was captured, which represented less than 1% of cases, more than 10,500 cases underwent CTA, providing a rate of 45.5%. The rate of CTA for the whole dataset was 45.5%. Of the study population, 24.6% had a NIHSS score of 6 or above.
“When you are discussing when to perform CTA in patients with a low NIHSS score, you are discussing the majority of patients,” Dr. Sevilis said.
Of those with a NIHSS stroke of 6 or below, 28.2% had a score of 0. Not surprisingly, these were the least likely to have a CTA performed on the basis of an odds ratio of 0.14 and the least likely to have a LVO detected (OR, 0.1). With the exception of a NIHSS stroke score of 1, the likelihood of CTA and LVO climbed incrementally with higher stroke scores. These odds ratios were, respectively, 0.16 and 0.09 for a score of 1; 0.27 and 0.16 for a score of 2; 0.33 and 0.14 for a score of 3; 0.49 and 0.24 for a score of 4; and 0.71 and 0.27 for a score of 5.
In the group with NIHSS score of 6 or above, 24.1% were found to have an LVO. Of these, the proportion accepted for a mechanical thrombectomy was less than half. The intervention acceptance rate for mechanical intervention among LVOs in patients with lower NIHSS scores again fell incrementally by score. The acceptance rate was about 35% among LVO patients with a NIHSS score of 3 or 4 and 25% for those with a score of 0-2.
The interpretation of these data “depends on goals,” Dr. Sevilis said. “If the goal is to not miss a single LVO, then it is important to consider the balance between benefits and risks.”
No consistent cutoff
In participating facilities, the protocol for considering CTA to detect and treat LVOs ranges from neurologist choice to cutoffs of NIHSS scores of 2, 4, and 6, according to Dr. Sevilis. Where the data suggest that a cutoff of 4 or above might be reasonable, she said that NIHSS scoring is not a useful tool for those “who do not want to miss any LVOs.”
These data are based on emergency room stroke consultations and not on confirmed strokes,” Dr. Sevilis emphasized. Indeed, she noted that the final discharge diagnosis was not available. Recognizing that the analysis was not performed on a population with confirmed strokes is particularly important for understanding the limited rate of CTAs performed even in those with relatively high NIHSS scores. She noted this could be explained by many different reasons, including suspicion of hemorrhage or clinical features that took the workup in a different direction.
Reconsidering protocols
Based on the large sample size, Dr. Sevilis contended that it is likely that these data are representative, but she considers this study a first step toward considering protocols and developing guidelines for addressing stroke alerts in the emergency department.
A more important step will be ongoing trials designed specifically to generate data to answer this question. Pascal Jabbour, MD, chief of the division of neurovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, is participating in one of these trials. He agreed with the premise that better evidence-based criteria are needed when evaluating acute stroke patients with a potential LVO.
The trial in which he is a coinvestigator, called ENDOLOW, is testing the hypothesis that outcomes will be better if acute stroke patients with a LVO and a low baseline NIHSS score (< 5) are treated with immediate thrombectomy rather than medical management. If this hypothesis is confirmed in the randomized ENDOLOW, it will provide an evidence basis for an approach already being practiced at some centers.
“There should be a very low threshold for CTA,” said Dr. Jabbour in an interview. This imaging “takes less than 2 minutes and it can provide the basis for a life-saving endovascular thrombectomy if a LVO is found.”
It is already well known that LVO is not restricted only to patients with an elevated NIHSS score, he said.
For determining whether to order a CTA, “I do not agree with NIHSS score of 6 or above. There is no absolute number below which risk of missing a LVO is eliminated,” Dr. Jabbour said. He also argued against relying on NIHSS score without considering other clinical features, particularly cortical signs, which should raise suspicion of a LVO regardless of NIHSS score.
One problem is that NIHSS scores are not static. Decompensation can be rapid with the NIHSS score quickly climbing. When this happens, the delay in treatment might lead to a preventable adverse outcome.
“There is a change in the paradigm now that we have more evidence of a benefit from aggressive treatment in the right candidates,” according to Dr. Jabbour, referring to the recently published SELECT2 trial. In that trial, on which Dr. Jabbour served as a coauthor, patients with LVO and large territory infarct were randomized to thrombectomy or medical care within 24 hours of a stroke. It was stopped early for efficacy because of the increased functional independence (20% vs. 7%) in the surgical intervention group.
If the ongoing trials establish better criteria for ruling in or out the presence of LVO in patients with acute stroke, Dr. Jabbour predicted that guidelines will be written to standardize practice.
Dr. Sevilis reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jabbour has financial relationships with Cerenovus, Medtronic, and Microvention.
FROM AAN 2023