Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor mobilizes bone marrow stem cells in patients with subacute ischemic stroke: the Stem Cell Trial of Recovery EnhanceMent After Stroke (STEMS) Pilot Randomized, Controlled Trial (ISRCTN 16784092)

Background and Purpose - Loss of motor function is common after stroke and leads to significant chronic disability. Stem cells are capable of self-renewal and of differentiating into multiple cell types, including neurones, glia, and vascular cells. We assessed the safety of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after stroke and its effect on circulating CD34 stem cells. Methods - We performed a 2-center, dose-escalation, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial (ISRCTN 16784092) of G-CSF (6 blocks of 1 to 10 g/kg SC, 1 or 5 daily doses) in 36 patients with recent ischemic stroke. Circulating CD34 stem cells were measured by flow cytometry; blood counts and measures of safety and functional outcome were also monitored. All measures were made blinded to treatment. Results - Thirty-six patients, whose mean SD age was 768 years and of whom 50% were male, were recruited. G-CSF (5 days of 10 g/kg) increased CD34 count in a dose-dependent manner, from 2.5 to 37.7 at day 5 (area under curve, P0.005). A dose-dependent rise in white cell count (P0.001) was also seen. There was no difference between treatment groups in the number of patients with serious adverse events: G-CSF, 7/24 (29%) versus placebo 3/12 (25%), or in their dependence (modified Rankin Scale, median 4, interquartile range, 3 to 5) at 90 days. Conclusions - ”G-CSF is effective at mobilizing bone marrow CD34 stem cells in patients with recent ischemic stroke. Administration is feasible and appears to be safe and well tolerated. The fate of mobilized cells and their effect on functional outcome remain to be determined. (Stroke. 2006;37:2979-2983.)

Calculation of sample size for stroke trials assessing functional outcome: comparison of binary and ordinal approaches

Background Many acute stroke trials have given neutral results. Sub-optimal statistical analyses may be failing to detect efficacy. Methods which take account of the ordinal nature of functional outcome data are more efficient. We compare sample size calculations for dichotomous and ordinal outcomes for use in stroke trials. Methods Data from stroke trials studying the effects of interventions known to positively or negatively alter functional outcome – Rankin Scale and Barthel Index – were assessed. Sample size was calculated using comparisons of proportions, means, medians (according to Payne), and ordinal data (according to Whitehead). The sample sizes gained from each method were compared using Friedman 2 way ANOVA. Results Fifty-five comparisons (54 173 patients) of active vs. control treatment were assessed. Estimated sample sizes differed significantly depending on the method of calculation (Po00001). The ordering of the methods showed that the ordinal method of Whitehead and comparison of means produced significantly lower sample sizes than the other methods. The ordinal data method on average reduced sample size by 28% (inter-quartile range 14–53%) compared with the comparison of proportions; however, a 22% increase in sample size was seen with the ordinal method for trials assessing thrombolysis. The comparison of medians method of Payne gave the largest sample sizes. Conclusions Choosing an ordinal rather than binary method of analysis allows most trials to be, on average, smaller by approximately 28% for a given statistical power. Smaller trial sample sizes may help by reducing time to completion, complexity, and financial expense. However, ordinal methods may not be optimal for interventions which both improve functional outcome

Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical re-analysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials

Background: Most large acute stroke trials have been neutral. Functional outcome is usually analysed using a yes or no answer, e.g. death or dependency vs. independence. We assessed which statistical approaches are most efficient in analysing outcomes from stroke trials. Methods: Individual patient data from acute, rehabilitation and stroke unit trials studying the effects of interventions which alter functional outcome were assessed. Outcomes included modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and ‘3 questions’. Data were analysed using a variety of approaches which compare two treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared. Results: Data from 55 datasets were obtained (47 trials, 54,173 patients). The test results differed substantially so that approaches which use the ordered nature of functional outcome data (ordinal logistic regression, t-test, robust ranks test, bootstrapping the difference in mean rank) were more efficient statistically than those which collapse the data into 2 groups (chi square) (ANOVA p<0.001). The findings were consistent across different types and sizes of trial and for the different measures of functional outcome. Conclusions: When analysing functional outcome from stroke trials, statistical tests which use the original ordered data are more efficient and more likely to yield reliable results. Suitable approaches included ordinal logistic regression, t-test, and robust ranks test.

Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials

Background and Purpose—Most large acute stroke trials have been neutral. Functional outcome is usually analyzed using a yes or no answer, eg, death or dependency versus independence. We assessed which statistical approaches are most efficient in analyzing outcomes from stroke trials. Methods—Individual patient data from acute, rehabilitation and stroke unit trials studying the effects of interventions which alter functional outcome were assessed. Outcomes included modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and “3 questions”. Data were analyzed using a variety of approaches which compare 2 treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared. Results—Data from 55 datasets were obtained (47 trials, 54 173 patients). The test results differed substantially so that approaches which use the ordered nature of functional outcome data (ordinal logistic regression, t test, robust ranks test, bootstrapping the difference in mean rank) were more efficient statistically than those which collapse the data into 2 groups (2; ANOVA, P0.001). The findings were consistent across different types and sizes of trial and for the different measures of functional outcome. Conclusions—When analyzing functional outcome from stroke trials, statistical tests which use the original ordered data are more efficient and more likely to yield reliable results. Suitable approaches included ordinal logistic regression, test, and robust ranks test.

Effect of telmisartan on functional outcome, recurrence, and blood pressure in patients with acute mild ischemic stroke: a PRoFESS subgroup analysis

Background and Purpose—High blood pressure (BP) is common in acute ischemic stroke and associated independently with a poor functional outcome. However, the management of BP acutely remains unclear because no large trials have been completed. Methods—The factorial PRoFESS secondary stroke prevention trial assessed BP-lowering and antiplatelet strategies in 20 332 patients; 1360 were enrolled within 72 hours of ischemic stroke, with telmisartan (angiotensin receptor antagonist, 80 mg/d, n647) vs placebo (n713). For this nonprespecified subgroup analysis, the primary outcome was functional outcome at 30 days; secondary outcomes included death, recurrence, and hemodynamic measures at up to 90 days. Analyses were adjusted for baseline prognostic variables and antiplatelet assignment. Results—Patients were representative of the whole trial (age 67 years, male 65%, baseline BP 147/84 mm Hg, small artery disease 60%, NIHSS 3) and baseline variables were similar between treatment groups. The mean time from stroke to recruitment was 58 hours. Combined death or dependency (modified Rankin scale: OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.84–1.26; P0.81; death: OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.27–4.04; and stroke recurrence: OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.68–2.89; P0.36) did not differ between the treatment groups. In comparison with placebo, telmisartan lowered BP (141/82 vs 135/78 mmHg, difference 6 to 7 mmHg and 2 to 4 mmHg; P0.001), pulse pressure (3 to 4 mmHg; P0.002), and rate-pressure product (466 mmHg.bpm; P0.0004). Conclusion—Treatment with telmisartan in 1360 patients with acute mild ischemic stroke and mildly elevated BP appeared to be safe with no excess in adverse events, was not associated with a significant effect on functional dependency, death, or recurrence, and modestly lowered BP.