Predicting long-term outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a simple index works in patients from controlled clinical trials

Background and Purpose—An early and reliable prognosis for recovery in stroke patients is important for initiation of individual treatment and for informing patients and relatives. We recently developed and validated models for predicting survival and functional independence within 3 months after acute stroke, based on age and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score assessed within 6 hours after stroke. Herein we demonstrate the applicability of our models in an independent sample of patients from controlled clinical trials. Methods—The prognostic models were used to predict survival and functional recovery in 5419 patients from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Furthermore, we tried to improve the accuracy by adapting intercepts and estimating new model parameters. Results—The original models were able to correctly classify 70.4% (survival) and 72.9% (functional recovery) of patients. Because the prediction was slightly pessimistic for patients in the controlled trials, adapting the intercept improved the accuracy to 74.8% (survival) and 74.0% (functional recovery). Novel estimation of parameters, however, yielded no relevant further improvement. Conclusions—For acute ischemic stroke patients included in controlled trials, our easy-to-apply prognostic models based on age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score correctly predicted survival and functional recovery after 3 months. Furthermore, a simple adaptation helps to adjust for a different prognosis and is recommended if a large data set is available. (Stroke. 2008;39:000-000.)

Systematic reviews as a tool for planning and interpreting trials

Background Systematic reviews followed by ameta-analysis are carried out in medical research to combine the results of two or more related studies. Stroke trials have struggled to show beneficial effects and meta-analysis should be used more widely throughout the research process to either speed up the development of useful interventions, or halt more quickly research with hazardous or ineffective interventions. Summary of review. This review summarises the clinical research process and illustrates how and when systematic reviews may be used throughout the development programme. Meta-analyses should be performed after observational studies, preclinical studies in experimental stroke, and after phase I, II, and III clinical trials and phase IV clinical surveillance studies. Although meta-analyses most commonly work with summary data, they may be performed to assess relationships between variables (meta-regression) and, ideally, should utilise individual patient data. Meta-analysis techniques may alsoworkwith ordered categorical outcome data (ordinal meta-analysis) and be used to perform indirect comparisons where original trial data do not exist. Conclusion Systematic review/meta-analyses are powerful tools in medical research and should be used throughout the development of all stroke and other interventions

Amphetamine increases blood pressure and heart rate but has no effect on motor recovery or cerebral haemodynamics in ischaemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36285333)

Amphetamine enhances recovery after experimental ischaemia and has shown promise in small clinical trials when combined with motor or sensory stimulation. Amphetamine, a sympathomimetic, might have haemodynamic effects in stroke patients, although limited data have been published. Subjects were recruited 3-30 days post ischaemic stroke into a phase II randomised (1:1), double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received dexamphetamine (5mg initially, then 10mg for 10 subsequent doses with 3 or 4 day separations) or placebo in addition to inpatient physiotherapy. Recovery was assessed by motor scales (Fugl-Meyer, FM), and functional scales (Barthel index, BI and modified Rankin score, mRS). Peripheral blood pressure (BP), central haemodynamics and middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity were assessed before, and 90 minutes after, the first 2 doses. 33 subjects were recruited, age 33-88 (mean 71) years, males 52%, 4-30 (median 15) days post stroke to inclusion. 16 patients were randomised to placebo and 17 amphetamine. Amphetamine did not improve motor function at 90 days; mean (standard deviation) FM 37.6 (27.6) vs. control 35.2 (27.8) (p=0.81). Functional outcome (BI, mRS) did not differ between treatment groups. Peripheral and central systolic BP, and heart rate, were 11.2 mmHg (p=0.03), 9.5 mmHg (p=0.04) and 7 beats/minute (p=0.02) higher respectively with amphetamine, compared with control. A non-significant reduction in myocardial perfusion (Buckberg Index) was seen with amphetamine. Other cardiac and cerebral haemodynamics were unaffected. Amphetamine did not improve motor impairment or function after ischaemic stroke but did significantly increase BP and heart rate without altering cerebral haemodynamics.