Background: and Purpose In the ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial, treatment with nerinetide was associated with improved outcomes in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We compared the effect of nerinetide on clinical outcomes in patients without concurrent intravenous alteplase treatment within different patient subgroups. Methods: ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter randomized trial in which acute stroke patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >4 undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) were randomized to intravenous nerinetide or placebo. The primary outcome was independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed baseline, clinical, and imaging variables as predictors of outcome and for evidence of treatment effect modification. We constructed two multivariable models using variables known prior to randomization and variables known immediately post-EVT procedure to provide adjusted estimates of effect. We assessed for evidence of treatment effect modification using multiplicative interaction terms within each model. Results: Four hundred forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes were better in patients randomized to the nerinetide arm (mRS 0–2: 59.4% vs. 49.8%). There was possible treatment effect modification by ASPECTS score; patients with ASPECTS 8–10 showed a larger treatment effect compared to those with lower ASPECTS score. Younger age, lower NIHSS score, lower baseline serum glucose, absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline, higher ASPECTS score, middle cerebral artery (vs. internal carotid artery) occlusion, use of conscious or no sedation (vs. general anesthesia), and faster treatment were all predictors of favorable outcome. Conclusion Patients in the nerinetide arm who were not treated with concurrent alteplase showed improved clinical outcomes and the treatment effect was larger among patients with favorable ASPECTS profiles.

Background: and Purpose In the ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial, treatment with nerinetide was associated with improved outcomes in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We compared the effect of nerinetide on clinical outcomes in patients without concurrent intravenous alteplase treatment within different patient subgroups. Methods: ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter randomized trial in which acute stroke patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >4 undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) were randomized to intravenous nerinetide or placebo. The primary outcome was independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed baseline, clinical, and imaging variables as predictors of outcome and for evidence of treatment effect modification. We constructed two multivariable models using variables known prior to randomization and variables known immediately post-EVT procedure to provide adjusted estimates of effect. We assessed for evidence of treatment effect modification using multiplicative interaction terms within each model. Results: Four hundred forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes were better in patients randomized to the nerinetide arm (mRS 0–2: 59.4% vs. 49.8%). There was possible treatment effect modification by ASPECTS score; patients with ASPECTS 8–10 showed a larger treatment effect compared to those with lower ASPECTS score. Younger age, lower NIHSS score, lower baseline serum glucose, absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline, higher ASPECTS score, middle cerebral artery (vs. internal carotid artery) occlusion, use of conscious or no sedation (vs. general anesthesia), and faster treatment were all predictors of favorable outcome. Conclusion Patients in the nerinetide arm who were not treated with concurrent alteplase showed improved clinical outcomes and the treatment effect was larger among patients with favorable ASPECTS profiles.

Background: and Purpose In the ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial, treatment with nerinetide was associated with improved outcomes in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We compared the effect of nerinetide on clinical outcomes in patients without concurrent intravenous alteplase treatment within different patient subgroups. Methods: ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter randomized trial in which acute stroke patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >4 undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) were randomized to intravenous nerinetide or placebo. The primary outcome was independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed baseline, clinical, and imaging variables as predictors of outcome and for evidence of treatment effect modification. We constructed two multivariable models using variables known prior to randomization and variables known immediately post-EVT procedure to provide adjusted estimates of effect. We assessed for evidence of treatment effect modification using multiplicative interaction terms within each model. Results: Four hundred forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes were better in patients randomized to the nerinetide arm (mRS 0–2: 59.4% vs. 49.8%). There was possible treatment effect modification by ASPECTS score; patients with ASPECTS 8–10 showed a larger treatment effect compared to those with lower ASPECTS score. Younger age, lower NIHSS score, lower baseline serum glucose, absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline, higher ASPECTS score, middle cerebral artery (vs. internal carotid artery) occlusion, use of conscious or no sedation (vs. general anesthesia), and faster treatment were all predictors of favorable outcome. Conclusion Patients in the nerinetide arm who were not treated with concurrent alteplase showed improved clinical outcomes and the treatment effect was larger among patients with favorable ASPECTS profiles.

Background: and Purpose Infarcts in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients may continue to grow even after reperfusion, due to mechanisms such as microvascular obstruction and reperfusion injury. We investigated whether and how much infarcts grow in AIS patients after near-complete (expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [eTICI] 2c/3) reperfusion following endovascular treatment (EVT), and to assess the association of post-reperfusion infarct growth with clinical outcomes. Methods: Data are from a single-center retrospective observational cohort study that included AIS patients undergoing EVT with near-complete reperfusion who received diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 2 hours post-EVT and 24 hours after EVT. Association of infarct growth between 2 and 24 hours post-EVT and 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) as well as 90-day modified Rankin Scale score was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Ninety-four of 155 (60.6%) patients achieved eTICI 2c/3 and were included in the analysis. Eighty of these 94 (85.1%) patients showed infarct growth between 2 and 24 hours post-reperfusion. Infarct growth ≥5 mL was seen in 39/94 (41.5%) patients, and infarct growth ≥10 mL was seen in 20/94 (21.3%) patients. Median infarct growth between 2 and 24 hours post-reperfusion was 4.5 mL (interquartile range: 0.4–9.2 mL). Post-reperfusion infarct growth was associated with the 24-hour NIHSS in multivariable analysis (odds ratio: 1.16 [95% confidence interval 1.09–1.24], P<0.01). Conclusion Infarcts continue to grow after EVT, even if near-complete reperfusion is achieved. Investigating the underlying mechanisms may inform future therapeutic approaches for mitigating the process and help improve patient outcome.

Background: and Purpose Infarct volume and other imaging markers are increasingly used as surrogate measures for clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke research, but how improvements in these imaging surrogates translate into better clinical outcomes is currently unclear. We investigated how changes in infarct volume at 24 hours alter the probability of achieving good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0–2). Methods: Data are from endovascular thrombectomy patients from the randomized controlled ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial. Infarct volume at 24 hours was manually segmented on non-contrast computed tomography or diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Probabilities of achieving good outcome based on infarct volume were obtained from a multivariable logistic regression model. The probability of good outcome was plotted against infarct volume using linear spline regression. Results: A total of 1,099 patients were included in the analysis (median final infarct volume 24.9 mL [interquartile range: 6.6–92.2]). The relationship between total infarct volume and good outcome probability was nearly linear for infarct volumes between 0 mL and 250 mL. In this range, a 10% increase in the probability of achieving mRS 0–2 required a decrease in infarct volume of approximately 34.0 mL (95% confidence interval: -32.5 to -35.6). At infarct volumes above 250 mL, the probability of achieving mRS 0–2 probability was near zero. The relationships of tissue-specific infarct volumes and parenchymal hemorrhage volume generally showed similar patterns, although variability was high. Conclusion There seems to be a near-linear association between total infarct volume and probability of achieving good outcome for infarcts up to 250 mL, whereas patients with infarct volumes greater than 250 mL are highly unlikely to have a favorable outcome.

There are several controversies regarding the role of sex and gender in the pathophysiology and management of acute stroke. Assessing the role of sex, i.e., biological/pathophysiological factors, and gender, i.e., sociocultural factors, in isolation is often not possible since they are closely intertwined with each other. To complicate matters even more, the functional baseline status of women and men at the time of their first stroke is substantially different, whereby women have, on average, a poorer reported/ascertained baseline function compared to men. These differences in baseline variables account for a large part of the differences in post-stroke outcomes between women and men. Adjusting for these baseline differences is difficult, and in many cases, residual confounding cannot be excluded. Despite these obstacles, a better understanding of how patient sex and gender differences influence acute stroke and stroke care pathways is crucial to avoid biases and allow us to provide the best possible care for all acute stroke patients. Disregarding patient sex and gender on one hand and ignoring potential confounding factors in sex- and gender-stratified analyses on the other hand, may cause researchers to come to erroneous conclusions and physicians to provide suboptimal care. This review outlines sex- and gender-related factors in key aspects of acute stroke, including acute stroke epidemiology, diagnosis, access to care, treatment outcomes, and post-acute care. We also attempt to outline knowledge gaps, which deserve to be studied in further detail, and practical implications for physicians treating acute stroke patients in their daily practice.

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the basis for evidence-based acute stroke care. For an RCT to change practice, its results have to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful. While methods to assess statistical significance are standardized and widely agreed upon, there is no clear consensus on how to assess clinical significance. Researchers often refer to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) when describing the smallest change in outcomes that is considered meaningful to patients and leads to a change in patient management. It is widely accepted that a treatment should only be adopted when its effect on outcome is equal to or larger than the MCID. There are however situations in which it is reasonable to decide against adopting a treatment, even when its beneficial effect matches or exceeds the MCID, for example when it is resource- intensive and associated with high costs. Furthermore, while the MCID represents an important concept in this regard, defining it for an individual trial is difficult as it is highly context specific. In the following, we use hypothetical stroke trial examples to review the challenges related to MCID, sample size and pragmatic considerations that researchers face in acute stroke trials, and propose a framework for designing meaningful stroke trials that have the potential to change clinical practice.