Davis, Stephen M.

Background The recommended maximum age and time window for intravenous alteplase treatment of acute ischemic stroke differs between the Europe Union and United States. Aims We compared the effects of alteplase in cohorts defined by the current Europe Union or United States marketing approval labels, and by hypothetical revisions of the labels that would remove the Europe Union upper age limit or extend the United States treatment time window to 4.5 h. Methods We assessed outcomes in an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials of intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) versus control for acute ischemic stroke. Outcomes included: excellent outcome (modified Rankin score 0–1) at 3–6 months, the distribution of modified Rankin score, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90-day mortality. Results Alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0–1 among 2449/6136 (40%) patients who met the current European Union label and 3491 (57%) patients who met the age-revised label (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.21−1.68 and 1.43, 1.23−1.65, respectively), but not in those outside the age-revised label (1.06, 0.90−1.26). By 90 days, there was no increased mortality in the current and age-revised cohorts (hazard ratios 0.98, 95% CI 0.76−1.25 and 1.01, 0.86–1.19, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the age-revised label (1.19, 0.99–1.42). Similarly, alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0-1 among 1174/6136 (19%) patients who met the current US approval and 3326 (54%) who met a 4.5-h revised approval (odds ratio 1.55, 1.19−2.01 and 1.37, 1.17−1.59, respectively), but not for those outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.14, 0.97−1.34). By 90 days, no increased mortality remained for the current and 4.5-h revised label cohorts (hazard ratios 0.99, 0.77−1.26 and 1.02, 0.87–1.20, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.17, 0.98–1.41). Conclusions An age-revised European Union label or 4.5-h-revised United States label would each increase the number of patients deriving net benefit from alteplase by 90 days after acute ischemic stroke, without excess mortality.

Background The greatest potential to reduce the burden of stroke is by primary prevention of first-ever stroke, which constitutes three quarters of all stroke. In addition to population-wide prevention strategies (the ‘mass’ approach), the ‘high risk’ approach aims to identify individuals at risk of stroke and to modify their risk factors, and risk, accordingly. Current methods of assessing and modifying stroke risk are difficult to access and implement by the general population, amongst whom most future strokes will arise. To help reduce the burden of stroke on individuals and the population a new app, the Stroke Riskometer™, has been developed. We aim to explore the validity of the app for predicting the risk of stroke compared with current best methods. Methods 752 stroke outcomes from a sample of 9501 individuals across three countries (New Zealand, Russia and the Netherlands) were utilized to investigate the performance of a novel stroke risk prediction tool algorithm (Stroke Riskometer™) compared with two established stroke risk score prediction algorithms (Framingham Stroke Risk Score [FSRS] and QStroke). We calculated the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) with 95% confidence intervals, Harrels C-statistic and D-statistics for measure of discrimination, R2 statistics to indicate level of variability accounted for by each prediction algorithm, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic for calibration, and the sensitivity and specificity of each algorithm. Results The Stroke Riskometer™ performed well against the FSRS five-year AUROC for both males (FSRS = 75·0% (95% CI 72·3%–77·6%), Stroke Riskometer™ = 74·0(95% CI 71·3%–76·7%) and females [FSRS = 70·3% (95% CI 67·9%–72·8%, Stroke Riskometer™ = 71·5% (95% CI 69·0%–73·9%)], and better than QStroke [males–59·7% (95% CI 57·3%–62·0%) and comparable to females = 71·1% (95% CI 69·0%–73·1%)]. Discriminative ability of all algorithms was low (C-statistic ranging from 0·51–0·56, D-statistic ranging from 0·01–0·12). Hosmer-Lemeshow illustrated that all of the predicted risk scores were not well calibrated with the observed event data ( P < 0·006). Conclusions The Stroke Riskometer™ is comparable in performance for stroke prediction with FSRS and QStroke. All three algorithms performed equally poorly in predicting stroke events. The Stroke Riskometer™ will be continually developed and validated to address the need to improve the current stroke risk scoring systems to more accurately predict stroke, particularly by identifying robust ethnic/race ethnicity group and country specific risk factors.

The recent “Advanced Neuroimaging for Acute Stroke Treatment” meeting on September 7 and 8, 2007 in Washington DC, brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, emergency physicians, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to discuss the role of advanced neuroimaging in acute stroke treatment. The goals of the meeting were to assess state-of-the-art practice in terms of acute stroke imaging research and to propose specific recommendations regarding: (1) the standardization of perfusion and penumbral imaging techniques, (2) the validation of the accuracy and clinical utility of imaging markers of the ischemic penumbra, (3) the validation of imaging biomarkers relevant to clinical outcomes, and (4) the creation of a central repository to achieve these goals. The present article summarizes these recommendations and examines practical steps to achieve them.