Which medication, if any, to use to prevent the headache of pediatric migraine has not been established.
We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline (1 mg per ...kilogram of body weight per day), topiramate (2 mg per kilogram per day), and placebo in children and adolescents 8 to 17 years of age with migraine. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive one of the medications or placebo. The primary outcome was a relative reduction of 50% or more in the number of headache days in the comparison of the 28-day baseline period with the last 28 days of a 24-week trial. Secondary outcomes were headache-related disability, headache days, number of trial completers, and serious adverse events that emerged during treatment.
A total of 361 patients underwent randomization, and 328 were included in the primary efficacy analysis (132 in the amitriptyline group, 130 in the topiramate group, and 66 in the placebo group). The trial was concluded early for futility after a planned interim analysis. There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome, which occurred in 52% of the patients in the amitriptyline group, 55% of those in the topiramate group, and 61% of those in the placebo group (amitriptyline vs. placebo, P=0.26; topiramate vs. placebo, P=0.48; amitriptyline vs. topiramate, P=0.49). There were also no significant between-group differences in headache-related disability, headache days, or the percentage of patients who completed the 24-week treatment period. Patients who received amitriptyline or topiramate had higher rates of several adverse events than those receiving placebo, including fatigue (30% vs. 14%) and dry mouth (25% vs. 12%) in the amitriptyline group and paresthesia (31% vs. 8%) and weight loss (8% vs. 0%) in the topiramate group. Three patients in the amitriptyline group had serious adverse events of altered mood, and one patient in the topiramate group had a suicide attempt.
There were no significant differences in reduction in headache frequency or headache-related disability in childhood and adolescent migraine with amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo over a period of 24 weeks. The active drugs were associated with higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; CHAMP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01581281 ).
The aim of this guideline is to provide a focused update of the current recommendations for the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. When there is overlap, the recommendations made here ...supersede those of previous guidelines.
This focused update analyzes results from 8 randomized, clinical trials of endovascular treatment and other relevant data published since 2013. It is not intended to be a complete literature review from the date of the previous guideline publication but rather to include pivotal new evidence that justifies changes in current recommendations. Members of the writing committee were appointed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council's Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Manuscript Oversight Committee. Strict adherence to the American Heart Association conflict of interest policy was maintained throughout the consensus process. Recommendations follow the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association methods of classifying the level of certainty of the treatment effect and the class of evidence. Prerelease review of the draft guideline was performed by 6 expert peer reviewers and by the members of the Stroke Council Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and Stroke Council Leadership Committee.
Evidence-based guidelines are presented for the selection of patients with acute ischemic stroke for endovascular treatment, for the endovascular procedure, and for systems of care to facilitate endovascular treatment.
Certain endovascular procedures have been demonstrated to provide clinical benefit in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. Systems of care should be organized to facilitate the delivery of this care.
Lacunar infarcts are a frequent type of stroke caused mainly by cerebral small-vessel disease. The effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention has not been defined.
We conducted a ...double-blind, multicenter trial involving 3020 patients with recent symptomatic lacunar infarcts identified by magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel or placebo daily; patients in both groups received 325 mg of aspirin daily. The primary outcome was any recurrent stroke, including ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage.
The participants had a mean age of 63 years, and 63% were men. After a mean follow-up of 3.4 years, the risk of recurrent stroke was not significantly reduced with aspirin and clopidogrel (dual antiplatelet therapy) (125 strokes; rate, 2.5% per year) as compared with aspirin alone (138 strokes, 2.7% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.72 to 1.16), nor was the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.09) or disabling or fatal stroke (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.64). The risk of major hemorrhage was almost doubled with dual antiplatelet therapy (105 hemorrhages, 2.1% per year) as compared with aspirin alone (56, 1.1% per year) (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.71; P<0.001). Among classifiable recurrent ischemic strokes, 71% (133 of 187) were lacunar strokes. All-cause mortality was increased among patients assigned to receive dual antiplatelet therapy (77 deaths in the group receiving aspirin alone vs. 113 in the group receiving dual antiplatelet therapy) (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.04; P=0.004); this difference was not accounted for by fatal hemorrhages (9 in the group receiving dual antiplatelet therapy vs. 4 in the group receiving aspirin alone).
Among patients with recent lacunar strokes, the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and did significantly increase the risk of bleeding and death. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; SPS3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00059306.).
To examine the baseline prevalence and longitudinal evolution in non-motor symptoms (NMS) in a prospective cohort of, at baseline, patients with de novo Parkinson's disease (PD) compared with healthy ...controls (HC).
Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) is a longitudinal, ongoing, controlled study of de novo PD participants and HC. NMS were rated using the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part I score and other validated NMS scales at baseline and after 2 years. Biological variables included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers and dopamine transporter imaging.
423 PD subjects and 196 HC were enrolled and followed for 2 years. MDS-UPDRS Part I total mean (SD) scores increased from baseline 5.6 (4.1) to 7.7 (5.0) at year 2 in PD subjects (p<0.001) versus from 2.9 (3.0) to 3.2 (3.0) in HC (p=0.38), with a significant difference between the groups (p<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, higher baseline NMS score was associated with female sex (p=0.008), higher baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II scores (p<0.001) and more severe motor phenotype (p=0.007). Longitudinal increase in NMS severity was associated with the older age (0.008) and lower CSF Aβ1-42 (0.005) at baseline. There was no association with the dose or class of dopaminergic therapy.
This study of NMS in early PD identified clinical and biological variables associated with both baseline burden and predictors of progression. The association of a greater longitudinal increase in NMS with lower baseline Aβ1-42 level is an important finding that will have to be replicated in other cohorts.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01141023.
Emerging evidence shows that α-synuclein seed amplification assays (SAAs) have the potential to differentiate people with Parkinson's disease from healthy controls. We used the well characterised, ...multicentre Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort to further assess the diagnostic performance of the α-synuclein SAA and to examine whether the assay identifies heterogeneity among patients and enables the early identification of at-risk groups.
This cross-sectional analysis is based on assessments done at enrolment for PPMI participants (including people with sporadic Parkinson's disease from LRRK2 and GBA variants, healthy controls, prodromal individuals with either rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) or hyposmia, and non-manifesting carriers of LRRK2 and GBA variants) from 33 participating academic neurology outpatient practices worldwide (in Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK, and the USA). α-synuclein SAA analysis of CSF was performed using previously described methods. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the α-synuclein SAA in participants with Parkinson's disease and healthy controls, including subgroups based on genetic and clinical features. We established the frequency of positive α-synuclein SAA results in prodromal participants (RBD and hyposmia) and non-manifesting carriers of genetic variants associated with Parkinson's disease, and compared α-synuclein SAA to clinical measures and other biomarkers. We used odds ratio estimates with 95% CIs to measure the association between α-synuclein SAA status and categorical measures, and two-sample 95% CIs from the resampling method to assess differences in medians between α-synuclein SAA positive and negative participants for continuous measures. A linear regression model was used to control for potential confounders such as age and sex.
This analysis included 1123 participants who were enrolled between July 7, 2010, and July 4, 2019. Of these, 545 had Parkinson's disease, 163 were healthy controls, 54 were participants with scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficit, 51 were prodromal participants, and 310 were non-manifesting carriers. Sensitivity for Parkinson's disease was 87·7% (95% CI 84·9–90·5), and specificity for healthy controls was 96·3% (93·4–99·2). The sensitivity of the α-synuclein SAA in sporadic Parkinson's disease with the typical olfactory deficit was 98·6% (96·4–99·4). The proportion of positive α-synuclein SAA was lower than this figure in subgroups including LRRK2 Parkinson's disease (67·5% 59·2–75·8) and participants with sporadic Parkinson's disease without olfactory deficit (78·3% 69·8–86·7). Participants with LRRK2 variant and normal olfaction had an even lower α-synuclein SAA positivity rate (34·7% 21·4–48·0). Among prodromal and at-risk groups, 44 (86%) of 51 of participants with RBD or hyposmia had positive α-synuclein SAA (16 of 18 with hyposmia, and 28 of 33 with RBD). 25 (8%) of 310 non-manifesting carriers (14 of 159 9% LRRK2 and 11 of 151 7% GBA) were positive.
This study represents the largest analysis so far of the α-synuclein SAA for the biochemical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Our results show that the assay classifies people with Parkinson's disease with high sensitivity and specificity, provides information about molecular heterogeneity, and detects prodromal individuals before diagnosis. These findings suggest a crucial role for the α-synuclein SAA in therapeutic development, both to identify pathologically defined subgroups of people with Parkinson's disease and to establish biomarker-defined at-risk cohorts.
PPMI is funded by the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research and funding partners, including: Abbvie, AcureX, Aligning Science Across Parkinson's, Amathus Therapeutics, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Bial Biotech, Biohaven, Biogen, BioLegend, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calico Labs, Celgene, Cerevel, Coave, DaCapo Brainscience, 4D Pharma, Denali, Edmond J Safra Foundation, Eli Lilly, GE Healthcare, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Golub Capital, Insitro, Janssen Neuroscience, Lundbeck, Merck, Meso Scale Discovery, Neurocrine Biosciences, Prevail Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, Takeda, Teva, UCB, VanquaBio, Verily, Voyager Therapeutics, and Yumanity.
Given the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) acceptance of master protocol designs in recent guidance documents, the oncology field is rapidly moving to address the paradigm shift to molecular ...subtype focused studies. Identifying new “marker‐based” treatments requires new methodologies to address the growing demand to conduct clinical trials in smaller molecular subpopulations, identify effective treatment and marker interactions, and control for false positives. We introduce our methodology, Hierarchical Bayesian Clustering Design of Multiple Biomarker Subgroups (HCOMBS), a two‐stage umbrella Phase II design with effect size clustering and information borrowing across multiple biomarker‐treatment pairs. HCOMBS was designed to reduce required sample size, differentiate between varying effect sizes, and control for operating characteristics in the multi‐arm setting. When compared to independently applied Simon's Optimal two‐stage design, we showed through simulations that HCOMBS required less participants per treatment arm with a well‐controlled family‐wise error rate and desirable marginal power. Additionally, HCOMBS features a statistical approach that simultaneously conducts clustering and hypothesis testing in one step. We also applied the proposed design on the alliance brain metastases umbrella trial.
Adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on data accumulating within a study. The promise of greater flexibility and efficiency stimulates increasing interest in adaptive designs from ...clinical, academic, and regulatory parties. When adaptive designs are used properly, efficiencies can include a smaller sample size, a more efficient treatment development process, and an increased chance of correctly answering the clinical question of interest. However, improper adaptations can lead to biased studies. A broad definition of adaptive designs allows for countless variations, which creates confusion as to the statistical validity and practical feasibility of many designs. Determining properties of a particular adaptive design requires careful consideration of the scientific context and statistical assumptions. We first review several adaptive designs that garner the most current interest. We focus on the design principles and research issues that lead to particular designs being appealing or unappealing in particular applications. We separately discuss exploratory and confirmatory stage designs in order to account for the differences in regulatory concerns. We include adaptive seamless designs, which combine stages in a unified approach. We also highlight a number of applied areas, such as comparative effectiveness research, that would benefit from the use of adaptive designs. Finally, we describe a number of current barriers and provide initial suggestions for overcoming them in order to promote wider use of appropriate adaptive designs. Given the breadth of the coverage all mathematical and most implementation details are omitted for the sake of brevity. However, the interested reader will find that we provide current references to focused reviews and original theoretical sources which lead to details of the current state of the art in theory and practice.
Summary Background The inconsistent effect of hypothermia treatment on severe brain injury in previous trials might be because hypothermia was induced too late after injury. We aimed to assess ...whether very early induction of hypothermia improves outcome in patients with severe brain injury. Methods The National Acute Brain Injury Study: Hypothermia II (NABIS: H II) was a randomised, multicentre clinical trial of patients with severe brain injury who were enrolled within 2·5 h of injury at six sites in the USA and Canada. Patients with non-penetrating brain injury who were 16–45 years old and were not responsive to instructions were randomly assigned (1:1) by a random number generator to hypothermia or normothermia. Patients randomly assigned to hypothermia were cooled to 35°C until their trauma assessment was completed. Patients who had none of a second set of exclusion criteria were either cooled to 33°C for 48 h and then gradually rewarmed or treated at normothermia, depending upon their initial treatment assignment. Investigators who assessed the outcome measures were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Glasgow outcome scale score at 6 months. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00178711. Findings Enrolment occurred from December, 2005, to June, 2009, when the trial was terminated for futility. Follow-up was from June, 2006, to December, 2009. 232 patients were initially randomised a mean of 1·6 h (SD 0·5) after injury: 119 to hypothermia and 113 to normothermia. 97 patients (52 in the hypothermia group and 45 in the normothermia group) did not meet any of the second set of exclusion criteria. The mean time to 35°C for the 52 patients in the hypothermia group was 2·6 h (SD 1·2) and to 33°C was 4·4 h (1·5). Outcome was poor (severe disability, vegetative state, or death) in 31 of 52 patients in the hypothermia group and 25 of 56 in the normothermia group (relative risk RR 1·08, 95% CI 0·76–1·53; p=0·67). 12 patients in the hypothermia group died compared with eight in the normothermia group (RR 1·30, 95% CI 0·58–2·52; p=0·52). Interpretation This trial did not confirm the utility of hypothermia as a primary neuroprotective strategy in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Funding National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
PDF
