MDedge Neurology

Dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs), a class of drugs approved to treat insomnia, may also be effective for rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD), a study suggests.

About 3 million people in the United States have RBD, which is often a precursor to Parkinson’s disease. People with the disorder act out their dreams by talking, flailing their arms and legs, punching, kicking, and exhibiting other behaviors while asleep.

Researchers used an animal model for the study, which they say is the first to identify a new form of treatment for RBD.

“REM behavior disorder is difficult to treat, and the treatments are mostly limited to clonazepam and melatonin,” which may have side effects, senior investigator Andrew Varga, MD, PhD, associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization. “We’re using something completely different, which raises the possibility this might be something useful for REM behavior disorders.”

The findings, with Mount Sinai assistant professor Korey Kam, PhD, as lead author, were published online in the Journal of Neuroscience.
 

A new model for RBD?

RBD can signal risk for synucleinopathies, a group of neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease that involve the formation of clumps of alpha-synuclein protein in the brain.

Prior research on RBD was done in synucleinopathy mouse models. For this study, however, researchers used a tauopathy mouse model to investigate how the abnormal accumulation of tau protein might affect RBD.

Researchers collected data on biophysical properties when the mice were awake and in REM and non-REM sleep. They examined length of sleep, transitions from waking to sleep, and how some factors are related to age.

Nearly a third of the older animals showed behaviors similar to REM sleep behavior disorder in humans, including chewing and limb extension.

But after researchers administered a DORA medication twice during a 24-hour period, they noted that the medication not only helped the animals fall asleep faster and for longer, it also reduced levels of dream enactment that are a hallmark of RBD.
 

The ‘bigger highlight’

Finding RBD behaviors in a tauopathy animal model was surprising, Dr. Varga said, because RBD has been previously linked to synucleinopathies. There was no known correlation between RBD and abnormal accumulation of tau.

Another unexpected finding was the detection of RBD in some of the younger animals, who had not yet shown evidence of tau accumulation.

“It appears to be a biomarker or a signature of something that’s going on that predicts the impending tauopathy at a time where there is very little, or no, tau pathology going on in the brain,” Dr. Varga said.

If RBD is an early predictor of future tau accumulation, the model could guide future prevention and treatment. However, the more important finding is the potential new treatment for the condition.

“The bigger highlight here is less about what’s causing the RBD [than about] what you can do to make it better,” he said.

The next step in the work is to study whether the effect of DORAs on RBD seen in this tauopathy mouse model is evidenced in other animals and whether it is effective in humans with RBD, Dr. Varga said.

The study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association and Merck Investigator Studies Program. Dr. Kam, Dr. Varga, and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs), a class of drugs approved to treat insomnia, may also be effective for rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD), a study suggests.

About 3 million people in the United States have RBD, which is often a precursor to Parkinson’s disease. People with the disorder act out their dreams by talking, flailing their arms and legs, punching, kicking, and exhibiting other behaviors while asleep.

Researchers used an animal model for the study, which they say is the first to identify a new form of treatment for RBD.

“REM behavior disorder is difficult to treat, and the treatments are mostly limited to clonazepam and melatonin,” which may have side effects, senior investigator Andrew Varga, MD, PhD, associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization. “We’re using something completely different, which raises the possibility this might be something useful for REM behavior disorders.”

The findings, with Mount Sinai assistant professor Korey Kam, PhD, as lead author, were published online in the Journal of Neuroscience.
 

A new model for RBD?

RBD can signal risk for synucleinopathies, a group of neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease that involve the formation of clumps of alpha-synuclein protein in the brain.

Prior research on RBD was done in synucleinopathy mouse models. For this study, however, researchers used a tauopathy mouse model to investigate how the abnormal accumulation of tau protein might affect RBD.

Researchers collected data on biophysical properties when the mice were awake and in REM and non-REM sleep. They examined length of sleep, transitions from waking to sleep, and how some factors are related to age.

Nearly a third of the older animals showed behaviors similar to REM sleep behavior disorder in humans, including chewing and limb extension.

But after researchers administered a DORA medication twice during a 24-hour period, they noted that the medication not only helped the animals fall asleep faster and for longer, it also reduced levels of dream enactment that are a hallmark of RBD.
 

The ‘bigger highlight’

Finding RBD behaviors in a tauopathy animal model was surprising, Dr. Varga said, because RBD has been previously linked to synucleinopathies. There was no known correlation between RBD and abnormal accumulation of tau.

Another unexpected finding was the detection of RBD in some of the younger animals, who had not yet shown evidence of tau accumulation.

“It appears to be a biomarker or a signature of something that’s going on that predicts the impending tauopathy at a time where there is very little, or no, tau pathology going on in the brain,” Dr. Varga said.

If RBD is an early predictor of future tau accumulation, the model could guide future prevention and treatment. However, the more important finding is the potential new treatment for the condition.

“The bigger highlight here is less about what’s causing the RBD [than about] what you can do to make it better,” he said.

The next step in the work is to study whether the effect of DORAs on RBD seen in this tauopathy mouse model is evidenced in other animals and whether it is effective in humans with RBD, Dr. Varga said.

The study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association and Merck Investigator Studies Program. Dr. Kam, Dr. Varga, and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs), a class of drugs approved to treat insomnia, may also be effective for rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD), a study suggests.

About 3 million people in the United States have RBD, which is often a precursor to Parkinson’s disease. People with the disorder act out their dreams by talking, flailing their arms and legs, punching, kicking, and exhibiting other behaviors while asleep.

Researchers used an animal model for the study, which they say is the first to identify a new form of treatment for RBD.

“REM behavior disorder is difficult to treat, and the treatments are mostly limited to clonazepam and melatonin,” which may have side effects, senior investigator Andrew Varga, MD, PhD, associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization. “We’re using something completely different, which raises the possibility this might be something useful for REM behavior disorders.”

The findings, with Mount Sinai assistant professor Korey Kam, PhD, as lead author, were published online in the Journal of Neuroscience.
 

A new model for RBD?

RBD can signal risk for synucleinopathies, a group of neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease that involve the formation of clumps of alpha-synuclein protein in the brain.

Prior research on RBD was done in synucleinopathy mouse models. For this study, however, researchers used a tauopathy mouse model to investigate how the abnormal accumulation of tau protein might affect RBD.

Researchers collected data on biophysical properties when the mice were awake and in REM and non-REM sleep. They examined length of sleep, transitions from waking to sleep, and how some factors are related to age.

Nearly a third of the older animals showed behaviors similar to REM sleep behavior disorder in humans, including chewing and limb extension.

But after researchers administered a DORA medication twice during a 24-hour period, they noted that the medication not only helped the animals fall asleep faster and for longer, it also reduced levels of dream enactment that are a hallmark of RBD.
 

The ‘bigger highlight’

Finding RBD behaviors in a tauopathy animal model was surprising, Dr. Varga said, because RBD has been previously linked to synucleinopathies. There was no known correlation between RBD and abnormal accumulation of tau.

Another unexpected finding was the detection of RBD in some of the younger animals, who had not yet shown evidence of tau accumulation.

“It appears to be a biomarker or a signature of something that’s going on that predicts the impending tauopathy at a time where there is very little, or no, tau pathology going on in the brain,” Dr. Varga said.

If RBD is an early predictor of future tau accumulation, the model could guide future prevention and treatment. However, the more important finding is the potential new treatment for the condition.

“The bigger highlight here is less about what’s causing the RBD [than about] what you can do to make it better,” he said.

The next step in the work is to study whether the effect of DORAs on RBD seen in this tauopathy mouse model is evidenced in other animals and whether it is effective in humans with RBD, Dr. Varga said.

The study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association and Merck Investigator Studies Program. Dr. Kam, Dr. Varga, and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prophylactic use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke did not reduce the risk of poor functional outcome in the PRECIOUS trial.

“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 prophylactic use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke did not reduce the risk of poor functional outcome in the PRECIOUS trial.

“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 prophylactic use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke did not reduce the risk of poor functional outcome in the PRECIOUS trial.

“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.

MUNICH, GERMANY – Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) management in the 24 hours after successful recanalization with intra-arterial thrombectomy (IAT) substantially increases the risk of a poor outcome at 3 months, 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 – Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) management in the 24 hours after successful recanalization with intra-arterial thrombectomy (IAT) substantially increases the risk of a poor outcome at 3 months, 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 – Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) management in the 24 hours after successful recanalization with intra-arterial thrombectomy (IAT) substantially increases the risk of a poor outcome at 3 months, 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.

Giving very late thrombolysis to patients with large-vessel occlusion small core strokes did not show a significant benefit in the TIMELESS trial.

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.

Giving very late thrombolysis to patients with large-vessel occlusion small core strokes did not show a significant benefit in the TIMELESS trial.

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.

Giving very late thrombolysis to patients with large-vessel occlusion small core strokes did not show a significant benefit in the TIMELESS trial.

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.

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular exercise may boost pain tolerance – a new finding that may have implications for those experiencing chronic pain, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of more than 10,000 adults, researchers found those who consistently engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the 7- to 8-year study period reported the highest pain tolerance. However, the results also showed that even light exercise was associated with greater pain tolerance.

“There were indications that both total amount of physical activity over time, as well as the direction of change in activity level over time matters to how high your pain tolerance is,” lead investigator Anders Pedersen Årnes, PT, MPH, research fellow and adviser at the University Hospital of North Norway, affiliated with the University of Tromsø, said in an interview. “As an observational study, this points toward the possibility that increased physical activity might increase pain tolerance.”

The findings were published online in PLOS One.
 

Anything is better than nothing

The researchers drew from the prospective, population-based Tromsø health study, a health survey that draws on surveys conducted periodically since 1974 among residents in northern Norway.

The study included 10,732 participants who completed surveys in 2007-2008 and again in 2015-2016.

Data on physical activity, experimental pain tolerance, sex, sociodemographic covariates, and chronic pain was collected through questionnaires, biological samples and clinical examination.

Pain tolerance was measured using the cold-pressor test (CPT), in which participants submerge their hand in icy water for as long as possible.

CPT tolerance was 7%, 14%, and 16% higher respectively for light, moderate, and vigorous consistent exercise across the two surveys versus the sedentary group.

“Engaging in habitual physical activity in leisure time is associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Any kind of activity over time is better than being sedentary.”

The researchers also found that people who were sedentary at baseline who reported greater physical activity at follow-up also had higher pain tolerance than those who remained sedentary, although this finding was not statistically significant.

This highest pain tolerance was noted in people who engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise over time, with a 20.4-second longer performance in the CPT than those who were consistently sedentary (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.1).

There was no significant difference in pain tolerance between men and women and all participants experienced a decline in tolerance over time.

“Results indicate that a positive change in physical activity level over time was associated with higher pain tolerance,” Mr. Årnes said. “Your total activity level might decide how much, as more seems to be better.”
 

More work needed

The long follow-up and large number of patients are two strengths of the study, Steven Cohen, MD, chief of pain medicine and professor of anesthesiology, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This study explored the relationship between general physical activity levels and one form of acute pain, but data from other studies show a benefit for other forms of pain,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not part of the research. “Taken together, this suggests that exercise is beneficial for individuals living with pain.”

The findings demonstrate an association between exercise and pain tolerance and other research has shown evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, Dr. Cohen said. However, “more work is needed to determine what mediates these effects.”

Questions also remain about how exercise might impact tolerance or risk for chronic pain, he added.

Investigators are now working on a follow-up study of how the effect of exercise on pain tolerance might influence chronic pain risk, Mr. Årnes said.

The study received no specific funding. Mr. Årnes and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental, proprietary cannabinoid-based drug in development for diabetic neuropathy outperformed pregabalin (Lyrica) in a clinical trial, achieving significant reduction in pain severity, new top-line results released by Zelira Therapeutics suggest.

“The implications of these results for patients are incredibly promising,” principal investigator Bryan Doner, DO, medical director of HealthyWays Integrated Wellness Solutions, Gibsonia, Pa., said in a news release.

“Through this rigorously designed study, we have demonstrated that ZLT-L-007 is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative for patients who would typically seek a Lyrica-level of pain relief,” he added.

The observational, nonblinded trial tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ZLT-L-007 against pregabalin in 60 adults with diabetic nerve pain.

The study had three groups with 20 patients each (pregabalin alone, pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007, and ZLT-L-007 alone).

Top-line results show the study met its primary endpoint for change in daily pain severity as measured by the percent change from baseline at 30, 60, and 90 days on the Numerical Rating Scale.

For the pregabalin-only group, there was a reduction in symptom severity at all follow-up points, ranging from 20% to 35% (median percent change from baseline), the company said.

For the ZLT-L-007 only group, there was about a 33% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, and 71% and 78% reduction, respectively, at 60 and 90 days, suggesting a larger improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

For the pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007 group, there was a moderate 20% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, but a larger reduction at 60 and 90 days (50% and 72%, respectively), which indicates substantially greater improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

The study also met secondary endpoints, including significant decreases in daily pain severity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and measurable changes in the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

Dr. Doner noted that the top-line data showed “no serious adverse events, and participants’ blood pressure and other safety vitals remained unaffected throughout. This confirms that ZLT-L-007 is a well-tolerated product that delivers statistically significant pain relief, surpassing the levels achieved by Lyrica.”

The company plans to report additional insights from the full study, as they become available, during fiscal year 2023-2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental, proprietary cannabinoid-based drug in development for diabetic neuropathy outperformed pregabalin (Lyrica) in a clinical trial, achieving significant reduction in pain severity, new top-line results released by Zelira Therapeutics suggest.

“The implications of these results for patients are incredibly promising,” principal investigator Bryan Doner, DO, medical director of HealthyWays Integrated Wellness Solutions, Gibsonia, Pa., said in a news release.

“Through this rigorously designed study, we have demonstrated that ZLT-L-007 is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative for patients who would typically seek a Lyrica-level of pain relief,” he added.

The observational, nonblinded trial tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ZLT-L-007 against pregabalin in 60 adults with diabetic nerve pain.

The study had three groups with 20 patients each (pregabalin alone, pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007, and ZLT-L-007 alone).

Top-line results show the study met its primary endpoint for change in daily pain severity as measured by the percent change from baseline at 30, 60, and 90 days on the Numerical Rating Scale.

For the pregabalin-only group, there was a reduction in symptom severity at all follow-up points, ranging from 20% to 35% (median percent change from baseline), the company said.

For the ZLT-L-007 only group, there was about a 33% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, and 71% and 78% reduction, respectively, at 60 and 90 days, suggesting a larger improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

For the pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007 group, there was a moderate 20% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, but a larger reduction at 60 and 90 days (50% and 72%, respectively), which indicates substantially greater improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

The study also met secondary endpoints, including significant decreases in daily pain severity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and measurable changes in the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

Dr. Doner noted that the top-line data showed “no serious adverse events, and participants’ blood pressure and other safety vitals remained unaffected throughout. This confirms that ZLT-L-007 is a well-tolerated product that delivers statistically significant pain relief, surpassing the levels achieved by Lyrica.”

The company plans to report additional insights from the full study, as they become available, during fiscal year 2023-2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental, proprietary cannabinoid-based drug in development for diabetic neuropathy outperformed pregabalin (Lyrica) in a clinical trial, achieving significant reduction in pain severity, new top-line results released by Zelira Therapeutics suggest.

“The implications of these results for patients are incredibly promising,” principal investigator Bryan Doner, DO, medical director of HealthyWays Integrated Wellness Solutions, Gibsonia, Pa., said in a news release.

“Through this rigorously designed study, we have demonstrated that ZLT-L-007 is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative for patients who would typically seek a Lyrica-level of pain relief,” he added.

The observational, nonblinded trial tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ZLT-L-007 against pregabalin in 60 adults with diabetic nerve pain.

The study had three groups with 20 patients each (pregabalin alone, pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007, and ZLT-L-007 alone).

Top-line results show the study met its primary endpoint for change in daily pain severity as measured by the percent change from baseline at 30, 60, and 90 days on the Numerical Rating Scale.

For the pregabalin-only group, there was a reduction in symptom severity at all follow-up points, ranging from 20% to 35% (median percent change from baseline), the company said.

For the ZLT-L-007 only group, there was about a 33% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, and 71% and 78% reduction, respectively, at 60 and 90 days, suggesting a larger improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

For the pregabalin plus ZLT-L-007 group, there was a moderate 20% reduction in symptom severity at 30 days, but a larger reduction at 60 and 90 days (50% and 72%, respectively), which indicates substantially greater improvement in symptom severity than with pregabalin alone, the company said.

The study also met secondary endpoints, including significant decreases in daily pain severity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and measurable changes in the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

Dr. Doner noted that the top-line data showed “no serious adverse events, and participants’ blood pressure and other safety vitals remained unaffected throughout. This confirms that ZLT-L-007 is a well-tolerated product that delivers statistically significant pain relief, surpassing the levels achieved by Lyrica.”

The company plans to report additional insights from the full study, as they become available, during fiscal year 2023-2024.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, I.D.Hodkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, I.D.Hodkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, I.D.Hodkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Summer is here. Well, technically not for 3 weeks, but in Phoenix summer as a weather condition generally runs from March to November.

The suprachiasmatic nucleus (yes, the one you learned in neuroanatomy) is pretty tiny, but still remarkable. Nothing brings that into focus like the changing of the seasons.

No matter where you live on Earth, you still have to deal with day and night, even if each is 6 months long. We all have to live with shifting schedules and lengths of night and day and weekdays and weekends.

But what fascinates me is how the internal clock reprograms itself, and then doesn’t change.

Case in point: Except for when I’ve had to catch a flight, I haven’t set an alarm in almost 10 years. Somewhere early in my career (back when I did a lot of hospital work) I began getting up between 4-5 a.m. to start rounds before going to the office.

Today the habit continues. It’s been 14 years since I last did weekday hospital call but I still automatically wake up, ready to go, between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Without me having to do anything this shuts off on vacations, holidays, and weekends, but is up and running as soon as I have to go back to the office.

It’s fascinating (at least to me) in that the suprachiasmatic nucleus didn’t evolve many millions of years ago so I could get to work without an alarm clock. Early animals needed to respond to changing conditions of night, day, and shifting seasons. Light and dark are universal for almost everything that walks, flies, and swims, so given enough time a way of internally keeping track of them developed. Bears use it to hibernate. Birds to migrate with the seasons.

Of course, it’s not all good. In some people it’s likely behind the bizarre predictability of their cluster headaches.

In the modern era we’ve also found ways to confuse it, with the invention of time zones and air travel. Anyone who’s made the leap across several time zones has had to adjust. It’s certainly not a major issue, but does take some getting used to.

But still, it’s pretty fascinating stuff. A reminder that, for all we do in our every day lives, the brain does things on autopilot that we don’t even think about.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Summer is here. Well, technically not for 3 weeks, but in Phoenix summer as a weather condition generally runs from March to November.

The suprachiasmatic nucleus (yes, the one you learned in neuroanatomy) is pretty tiny, but still remarkable. Nothing brings that into focus like the changing of the seasons.

No matter where you live on Earth, you still have to deal with day and night, even if each is 6 months long. We all have to live with shifting schedules and lengths of night and day and weekdays and weekends.

But what fascinates me is how the internal clock reprograms itself, and then doesn’t change.

Case in point: Except for when I’ve had to catch a flight, I haven’t set an alarm in almost 10 years. Somewhere early in my career (back when I did a lot of hospital work) I began getting up between 4-5 a.m. to start rounds before going to the office.

Today the habit continues. It’s been 14 years since I last did weekday hospital call but I still automatically wake up, ready to go, between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Without me having to do anything this shuts off on vacations, holidays, and weekends, but is up and running as soon as I have to go back to the office.

It’s fascinating (at least to me) in that the suprachiasmatic nucleus didn’t evolve many millions of years ago so I could get to work without an alarm clock. Early animals needed to respond to changing conditions of night, day, and shifting seasons. Light and dark are universal for almost everything that walks, flies, and swims, so given enough time a way of internally keeping track of them developed. Bears use it to hibernate. Birds to migrate with the seasons.

Of course, it’s not all good. In some people it’s likely behind the bizarre predictability of their cluster headaches.

In the modern era we’ve also found ways to confuse it, with the invention of time zones and air travel. Anyone who’s made the leap across several time zones has had to adjust. It’s certainly not a major issue, but does take some getting used to.

But still, it’s pretty fascinating stuff. A reminder that, for all we do in our every day lives, the brain does things on autopilot that we don’t even think about.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Summer is here. Well, technically not for 3 weeks, but in Phoenix summer as a weather condition generally runs from March to November.

The suprachiasmatic nucleus (yes, the one you learned in neuroanatomy) is pretty tiny, but still remarkable. Nothing brings that into focus like the changing of the seasons.

No matter where you live on Earth, you still have to deal with day and night, even if each is 6 months long. We all have to live with shifting schedules and lengths of night and day and weekdays and weekends.

But what fascinates me is how the internal clock reprograms itself, and then doesn’t change.

Case in point: Except for when I’ve had to catch a flight, I haven’t set an alarm in almost 10 years. Somewhere early in my career (back when I did a lot of hospital work) I began getting up between 4-5 a.m. to start rounds before going to the office.

Today the habit continues. It’s been 14 years since I last did weekday hospital call but I still automatically wake up, ready to go, between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Without me having to do anything this shuts off on vacations, holidays, and weekends, but is up and running as soon as I have to go back to the office.

It’s fascinating (at least to me) in that the suprachiasmatic nucleus didn’t evolve many millions of years ago so I could get to work without an alarm clock. Early animals needed to respond to changing conditions of night, day, and shifting seasons. Light and dark are universal for almost everything that walks, flies, and swims, so given enough time a way of internally keeping track of them developed. Bears use it to hibernate. Birds to migrate with the seasons.

Of course, it’s not all good. In some people it’s likely behind the bizarre predictability of their cluster headaches.

In the modern era we’ve also found ways to confuse it, with the invention of time zones and air travel. Anyone who’s made the leap across several time zones has had to adjust. It’s certainly not a major issue, but does take some getting used to.

But still, it’s pretty fascinating stuff. A reminder that, for all we do in our every day lives, the brain does things on autopilot that we don’t even think about.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

MUNICH, GERMANY – Anticoagulation using apixaban (Eliquis) offers no benefit over aspirin in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) who have atrial cardiopathy but no overt atrial fibrillation, 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 – Anticoagulation using apixaban (Eliquis) offers no benefit over aspirin in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) who have atrial cardiopathy but no overt atrial fibrillation, 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 – Anticoagulation using apixaban (Eliquis) offers no benefit over aspirin in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) who have atrial cardiopathy but no overt atrial fibrillation, 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 – Adding carotid revascularization to optimized medical therapy (OMT) does not appear to offer a clinical benefit in patients with significant carotid stenosis and a low to intermediate 5-year risk of stroke, 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 – Adding carotid revascularization to optimized medical therapy (OMT) does not appear to offer a clinical benefit in patients with significant carotid stenosis and a low to intermediate 5-year risk of stroke, 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 – Adding carotid revascularization to optimized medical therapy (OMT) does not appear to offer a clinical benefit in patients with significant carotid stenosis and a low to intermediate 5-year risk of stroke, 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.