Search

Summary: Background: It is not known whether to continue or temporarily stop existing antihypertensive drugs in patients with acute stroke. Methods: We performed a prospective subgroup analysis of patients enrolled into the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) trial who were randomised to continue vs stop prior antihypertensive therapy within 12 h of stroke onset. The primary outcome was functional outcome, assessed with the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days by observers blinded to treatment assignment, and analysed with ordinal logistic regression. Findings: Of 4011 patients recruited into ENOS from 2001 to 2014, 2097 patients were randomised to continue vs stop prior antihypertensive treatment, and 384 (18.3%, continue 185, stop 199) were enrolled within 12 h of ictus: mean (SD) age 71.8 (11.8) years, female 193 (50.3%), ischaemic stroke 342 (89.1%) and total anterior circulation syndrome 114 (29.7%). As compared with stopping, continuing treatment within 12 h of onset lowered blood pressure by 15.5/9.6 mmHg (p

Introduction Nitrate-induced headache is common and may signify responsive cerebral vasculature. We assessed the relationship between nitrate headache and outcome in patients with acute stroke.Materials and methods Patients were those randomised to glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) versus no GTN in the efficacy of nitric oxide in stroke trial. Development of headache by end of treatment (day 7), and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale, primary outcome) at day 90, were assessed. Analyses are adjusted for baseline prognostic factors and give OR and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.Results In 4011 patients, headache was more common in GTN than control (360, 18.0% vs 170, 8.5%; p

Background: Tranexamic acid reduces death due to bleeding after trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess if tranexamic acid is safe, reduces haematoma expansion and improves outcomes in adults with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Design: The TICH-2 (Tranexamic acid for hyperacute primary IntraCerebral Haemorrhage) study was a pragmatic, Phase III, prospective, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Acute stroke services at 124 hospitals in 12 countries (Denmark, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK). Participants: Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with ICH within 8 hours of onset. Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria were ICH secondary to anticoagulation, thrombolysis, trauma or a known underlying structural abnormality; patients for whom tranexamic acid was thought to be contraindicated; prestroke dependence (i.e. patients with a modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score > 4); life expectancy 4.5 hours after stroke onset. Pragmatic inclusion criteria led to a heterogeneous population of participants, some of whom had very large strokes. Although 12 countries enrolled participants, the majority (82.1%) were from the UK. Conclusions: Tranexamic acid did not affect a patient’s functional status at 90 days after ICH, despite there being significant modest reductions in early death (by 7 days), haematoma expansion and SAEs, which is consistent with an antifibrinolytic effect. Tranexamic acid was safe, with no increase in thromboembolic events. Future work: Future work should focus on enrolling and treating patients early after stroke and identify which participants are most likely to benefit from haemostatic therapy. Large randomised trials are needed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93732214. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The project was also funded by the Pragmatic Trials, UK, funding call and the Swiss Heart Foundation in Switzerland.

Background and purposeCentral adjudication of serious adverse events (SAEs) can be undertaken in clinical trials, especially for open-label studies where outcome assessment may be at risk of bias. This study explored the effect of central adjudication of SAEs on the safety results of the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) Trial.MethodsENOS assigned patients with acute stroke at random to receive either transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) or no GTN and to Stop or Continue previous antihypertensive treatment. SAEs were reported by local investigators who were not blinded to treatment allocation. Central adjudicators, blinded to treatment allocation, reviewed the investigators reports and used evidence available to confirm or re-categorise the classification of event, likely causality, diagnosis and expectedness of event.ResultsOf 4011 patients enrolled in ENOS, 1473 SAEs were reported by local investigators; this was reduced to 1444 after the review by adjudicators, with 29 re-classified as not an SAE. There was fair agreement between investigators and adjudicators regarding likely causality, with 808 agreements and 644 disagreements (56% crude agreement, weighted kappa, κ = 0.31). Agreement increased upon dichotomisation of the causality categories, with 1432 agreements and 20 disagreements (99% crude agreement, kappa = 0.54). Repeating the main trial safety analysis with investigator reported events showed that adjudication had no effect on the main trial safety conclusions.ConclusionsIn a large trial, with many SAEs reported, central adjudication of these events did not affect trial conclusions. This suggests that adjudication of SAEs in a clinical trial where the intervention already has a well-established safety profile may not be necessary. Potential efficiency savings (financial, logistical) can be made through not adjudicating SAEs.