METHODS: We performed a systematic-search-and-review of treatments that have been investigated as recovery-enhancing or recovery-promoting therapies in adult patients with stroke. The treatment must have received registration or market authorization in any country regardless of primary indication. Outcomes included in the review were neurological impairments and functional/disability assessments. "The best available studies" based on study design, study size, and/or date of publication were selected and graded for level of evidence (LOE) by consensus.
RESULTS: Our systematic search yielded 7,801 citations, and we reviewed 665 full-text papers. Fifty-eight publications were selected as "the best studies" across 25 pharmacological classes: 31 on ischemic stroke, 21 on ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, 4 on intracerebral hemorrhage, and 2 on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Twenty-six were systematic reviews/meta-analyses, 29 were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and three were cohort studies. Only nimodipine for SAH had LOE A of benefit (systematic review and network meta-analysis). Many studies, some of which showed treatment effects, were assessed as LOE C-LD, mainly due to small sample sizes or poor quality. Seven interventions had LOE B-R (systematic review/meta-analysis or RCT) of treatment effects.
CONCLUSION: Only one commercially available treatment has LOE A for routine use in stroke. Further studies of putative neuroprotective drugs as adjunctive treatment to revascularization procedures and more confirmatory trials on recovery-promoting therapies will enhance the certainty of their benefit. The decision on their use must be guided by the clinical profile, neurological impairments, and target outcomes based on the available evidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=376973, PROSPERO, CRD42022376973.
AIM: To define optimal early mobility intervention regimens for ischemic stroke patients of mild and moderate severity.
HYPOTHESES: Compared with a prespecified reference arm, the optimal dose regimen(s) will result in more participants experiencing little or no disability (mRS 0-2) at 3 months post-stroke (primary), fewer deaths at 3 months, fewer and less severe complications during the intervention period, faster recovery of unassisted walking, and better quality of life at 3 months (secondary). We also hypothesize that these regimens will be more cost-effective.
SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATES: For the primary outcome, recruitment of 1300 mild and 1400 moderate participants will yield 80% power to detect a 10% risk difference.
METHODS AND DESIGN: Multi-arm multi-stage covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomized trial of mobility training commenced within 48 h of stroke in mild (NIHSS 2) and hemorrhagic stroke. With four arms per stratum (reference arm retained throughout), only the single treatment arm demonstrating the highest proportion of favorable outcomes at the first stage will proceed to the second stage in each stratum, resulting in a final comparison with the reference arm. Three prognostic covariates of age, geographic region and reperfusion interventions, as well as previously observed mRS 0-2 responses inform the adaptive randomization procedure. Participants randomized receive prespecified mobility training regimens (functional task-specific), provided by physiotherapists/nurses until discharge or 14 days. Interventions replace usual mobility training. Fifty hospitals in seven countries (Australia, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Ireland, India, Brazil, Singapore) are expected to participate.
SUMMARY: Our novel adaptive trial design will evaluate a wider variety of mobility regimes than a traditional two-arm design. The data-driven adaptions during the trial will enable a more efficient evaluation to determine the optimal early mobility intervention for patients with mild and moderate ischemic stroke.
METHODS: This is an international, multicenter, hospital-based study on stroke incidence and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will describe patterns in stroke management, stroke hospitalization rate, and stroke severity, subtype (ischemic/hemorrhagic), and outcomes (including in-hospital mortality) in 2020 during COVID-19 pandemic, comparing them with the corresponding data from 2018 and 2019, and subsequently 2021. We will also use an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to assess the change in stroke hospitalization rates before, during, and after COVID-19, in each participating center.
CONCLUSION: The proposed study will potentially enable us to better understand the changes in stroke care protocols, differential hospitalization rate, and severity of stroke, as it pertains to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this will help guide clinical-based policies surrounding COVID-19 and other similar global pandemics to ensure that management of cerebrovascular comorbidity is appropriately prioritized during the global crisis. It will also guide public health guidelines for at-risk populations to reduce risks of complications from such comorbidities.