Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a common global brain disease that causes cognitive impairment, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, problems with mobility, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. The brain damage, seen as focal white and deep grey matter lesions on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT), typically accumulates "covertly" and may reach an advanced state before being detected incidentally on brain scanning or causing symptoms. Patients have typically presented to different clinical services or been recruited into research focused on one clinical manifestation, perhaps explaining a lack of awareness, until recently, of the full range and complexity of SVD.In this review, we discuss the varied clinical presentations, established and emerging risk factors, relationship to SVD features on MRI or CT, and the current state of knowledge on the effectiveness of a wide range of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions. The core message is that effective assessment and clinical management of patients with SVD, as well as future advances in diagnosis, care, and treatment, will require a more "joined-up" ’ approach. This approach should integrate clinical expertise in stroke neurology, cognitive, and physical dysfunctions. It requires more clinical trials in order to improve pharmacological interventions, lifestyle and dietary modifications. A deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of SVD is required to steer the identification of novel interventions. An essential prerequisite to accelerating clinical trials is to improve the consistency, and standardization of clinical, cognitive and neuroimaging endpoints.

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the “less traditional” designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the “less traditional” designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the “less traditional” designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.