This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Furlan, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Furlan, A. J.

(Stroke. 2002;33:1450.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorials

Acute Stroke Trials: Strengthening the Underpowered

Anthony J. Furlan, MD

From the Section of Stroke and Neurological Intensive Care, Department of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.

Correspondence to Anthony J. Furlan, MD, Cleveland Clinic Cerebrovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Desk S91, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195. E-mail furlana@ccf.org

Key Words: controlled clinical trials • neuroprotection

In this issue of Stroke, Muir¹ addresses the looming crisis in acute stroke clinical trial design by illustrating why neuroprotective trials have been seriously underpowered. Unfortunately, this is not a new observation. Samsa and Matchar² pointed out 3 statistical reasons neuroprotective stroke trials have been underpowered: (1) Sensitivity of power to small changes in outcome rates. (2) Overestimation of true treatment effect. Typically, neuroprotective stroke trials are powered to detect absolute treatment effects of 10%. This is likely wishful thinking. Phase III neuroprotective stroke trial sample sizes are usually based on optimistic phase II treatment effects. Furthermore, endpoints vary from trial to trial and may be erroneously selected on the basis of phase II data (eg, citicoline used an unconventional NIHSS analysis and lubeluzole Europe chose mortality). There is little reason to believe that neuroprotective stroke therapy alone will demonstrate the same magnitude of efficacy as reperfusion stroke therapy with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator under 3 hours (13% absolute benefit) or intra-arterial thrombolysis at 6 hours (15% absolute benefit). (3) Underestimation of the minimum clinically important difference. Since stroke is disabling with high long-term care costs, even a very modest treatment benefit on the order of 2% may result in a net benefit from a population viewpoint. Cardiology trials have employed this type of analysis to demonstrate the cost-effective benefit of new therapies that improve mortality by only 1%. Others^3–5 have emphasized the need for standardization of baseline stroke severity, a shorter time window, and combination therapy.

Adding to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. E. Latchaw, M. J. Alberts, M. H. Lev, J. J. Connors, R. E. Harbaugh, R. T. Higashida, R. Hobson, C. S. Kidwell, W. J. Koroshetz, V. Mathews, et al. Recommendations for Imaging of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Stroke, November 1, 2009; 40(11): 3646 - 3678. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Silakova, J. A. Hewett, and S. J. Hewett Naproxen Reduces Excitotoxic Neurodegeneration in Vivo with an Extended Therapeutic Window J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2004; 309(3): 1060 - 1066. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Fisher Recommendations for Advancing Development of Acute Stroke Therapies: Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable 3 Stroke, June 1, 2003; 34(6): 1539 - 1546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]