Published online before print September 22, 2005, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000181089.41324.70
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2005;36:2187.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale With Disability Outcome Measures in Acute Stroke Trials
From the Department of Cerebrovascular Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences (F.B.Y., C.J.W., K.R.L.) and the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics (C.J.W.), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, U.K.
Correspondence to Fiona B. Young, BSc, Gardiner Institute, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, U.K. G11 6NT. E-mail Fby1w{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Background and Purpose— Acute stroke trials typically use disability scales as their primary end point. Neurologic impairment scales such as the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) are possibly more sensitive to change in patient status. We aimed to compare a range of potential NIHSS end points with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index (BI) end points.
Methods— We simulated a total of 6000 clinical trials, each with 1400 patients. We estimated statistical power for a range of NIHSS end points, including prognosis-adjusted and fixed dichotomized end points. These end points were compared with the BI and mRS dichotomized at 95 and 1, respectively.
Results— The most powerful fixed end point was the NIHSS dichotomized at 1. For prognosis-adjusted outcome, we found greatest power if we defined success as achieving a score of 
1 or improvement by at least 11 points from baseline. We are more likely to achieve a statistically significant result by using this prognosis-adjusted end point instead of NIHSS 1 (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 3.2). Use of the optimal NIHSS prognosis-adjusted end point rather than BI 
95 could justify a reduction in sample size of approximately 68% (95% CI, 67% to 69%) without loss of statistical power.
Conclusions— The NIHSS neurologic scale appears more sensitive than the BI or mRS, allowing smaller sample sizes or greater statistical power. The use of an NIHSS prognosis-adjusted end point could allow therapeutic effects from drugs to be more easily identified.
Key Words: acute stroke • clinical trial • end point determination
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  J. Dawson, J. S. Lees, T.-P. Chang, M. R. Walters, M. Ali, S. M. Davis, H.-C. Diener, K. R. Lees, and for the GAIN and VISTA Investigators Association Between Disability Measures and Healthcare Costs After Initial Treatment for Acute Stroke Stroke, June 1, 2007; 38(6): 1893 - 1898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. R. Lees, A. Davalos, S. M. Davis, H.-C. Diener, J. Grotta, P. Lyden, A. Shuaib, T. Ashwood, H.-G. Hardemark, W. Wasiewski, et al. Additional Outcomes and Subgroup Analyses of NXY-059 for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the SAINT I Trial Stroke, December 1, 2006; 37(12): 2970 - 2978. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Dawson and M. Walters New and emerging treatments for stroke Br. Med. Bull., November 7, 2006; (2006) ldl011v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Koziol and A. C. Feng On the Analysis and Interpretation of Outcome Measures in Stroke Clinical Trials: Lessons From the SAINT I Study of NXY-059 for Acute Ischemic Stroke Stroke, October 1, 2006; 37(10): 2644 - 2647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bruno, C. Saha, and L. S. Williams Using Change in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale to Measure Treatment Effect in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, March 1, 2006; 37(3): 920 - 921. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|