This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/3/920    most recent 01.STR.0000202679.88377.e4v1 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 Bruno, A. Articles by Williams, L. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bruno, A. Articles by Williams, L. S. Related Collections Acute Cerebral Infarction Other Stroke

(Stroke. 2006;37:920.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Research Reports

Using Change in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale to Measure Treatment Effect in Acute Stroke Trials

Askiel Bruno, MD; Chandan Saha, PhD Linda S. Williams, MD

From the Department of Neurology (A.B., L.S.W.), Roudebush VA Medical Center (L.S.W.), and Section of Biostatistics (C.S.), Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.

Correspondence to Askiel Bruno, MD, Department of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1050 Wishard Blvd, Room R-6105, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail abruno{at}iupui.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Background and Purpose— Outcome measures in acute stroke trials are being refined. Changes in neurological deficits might be useful outcome measures because they can measure the entire spectrum of deficits.

Methods— We analyzed data from the acute stroke treatment trial Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Using logistic regression analysis, we modeled the probability of the TOAST predefined very favorable outcome (VFO; both Glasgow Outcome Scale 1 and modified Barthel Index 19 to 20) at 3 months. Within-subject changes (baseline–3 months) on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was the main predictor of interest.

Results— The baseline median NIHSS for the entire TOAST cohort was 7, and it improved by 4 points (interquartile range 3 to 6) among 603 patient with VFO and by 2 points (interquartile range –1 to 5) among 638 patients without a VFO (P<0.001). The odds for VFO increased by 2.29 (95% CI, 2.06 to 2.54; P<0.001) for each 1-point improvement on the NIHSS. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, final NIHSS 2 was a good predictor of VFO, but no single NIHSS change cut point was a good predictor of VFO.

Conclusions— NIHSS change appears to be a useful outcome measure for acute stroke trials and is not fully comparable to dichotomized functional outcomes.

Key Words: outcome • recovery of function • stroke, acute

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The traditional, dichotomized, primary functional outcomes in acute stroke trials may not capture clinically meaningful improvements that fall short of the defined outcomes,^1,2 which may lessen the analytical power.^1–4 Neurological deficit scales can measure changes from stroke onset through recovery across the entire range of deficits. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a popular neurological deficit scale with documented reliability, validity, and outcome predictive ability.^5–8 To evaluate NIHSS change over time as a potential marker of treatment effect in acute stroke trials, we analyzed data from a large acute stroke treatment trial, Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST).⁹ The TOAST trial compared treatment with the anticoagulant Danaparoid to placebo in patients with acute cerebral infarction and showed no treatment benefit.

	Patients and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Very favorable outcome (VFO) was predefined in TOAST as having both Glasgow Outcome Scale of 1 and modified Barthel Index 19 to 20 of 20 at 3 months. We defined NIHSS change as the baseline score minus the final 3-month score. Finalized TOAST trial data were provided by the TOAST Data Management Center at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.

Logistic regression analysis modeled for VFO. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of within-subject NIHSS change after adjusting for significant covariates. Wilcoxon rank sum test compared NIHSS change between subjects with and without VFO. Subjects who died were assigned the highest possible NIHSS score. We also compared the NIHSS change by treatment group in the TOAST subgroups showing a significant treatment effect in the TOAST trial (Table). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis assessed sensitivities and specificities of the NIHSS change and the final 3-month NIHSS in predicting VFO.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Very Favorable (functional) Outcomes and Median NIHSS Changes in the TOAST Trial

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The TOAST trial enrolled 1281 subjects, and complete data for this analysis were available for 1232. At 3 months, the NIHSS score decreased by a median of 4 points (interquartile range 3 to 6) in subjects with VFO and by 2 points (interquartile range –1 to 5) in subjects without VFO (P<0.001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, baseline NIHSS, baseline blood glucose, and NIHSS change were significant independent predictors of VFO. With each 1-point improvement in the NIHSS, the odds for VFO increased by 2.29 (95% CI, 2.06 to 2.54; P<0.001). The Table shows the outcomes by treatment group.

Despite good correlation between NIHSS change and VFO in logistic regression analysis, ROC analysis did not find a specific cut point for NIHSS change with sufficiently high sensitivity and specificity to reliably predict VFO (area under curve 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.68). However, analysis of the NIHSS score at 3 months as a predictor of VFO showed that a score of 2 is a good predictor of VFO (area under curve 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.93; sensitivity 82.8%; specificity 84.6%).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and Methods Results Discussion References

 
NIHSS change during the first 3 months of stroke and dichotomized functional outcomes convey different information and are not fully comparable. The NIHSS change measures all improvements, including those that stop short of a dichotomized favorable outcome but may nonetheless be clinically significant and may indicate a treatment effect. Theoretically, this method should increase the power of statistical analysis when comparing treatments. The association between NIHSS change and VFO found in this study indicates that the NIHSS change may be a useful addition to the traditional dichotomized outcomes in acute stroke trials.

As to reliably predicting the dichotomized VFO, no single NIHSS change cut point has sufficient sensitivity and specificity. This is because greater NIHSS changes are needed to achieve VFO in severe than in mild strokes. This is indicated by ROC analysis showing that a final 3-month NIHSS score dichotomized at 2 is a good predictor of VFO. Thus, to best predict VFO, a patient with a baseline NIHSS of 10 needs to improve by 8 points and a patient with a baseline of 5 by 3 points.

NIHSS change did not detect the treatment effects seen in secondary analyses in the TOAST trial (Table). At least 2 explanations for this are possible. One, NIHSS change might be a less sensitive outcome measure than the VFO. Alternatively, improvements in subjects with severe strokes who did not reach the VFO may have been such that they countered the result seen in TOAST when tested according to NIHSS change. Several acute stroke treatment trials report NIHSS change as a secondary outcome, largely in agreement with dichotomized functional outcomes.^10–15 NIHSS change appears to be a useful outcome measure in acute stroke trials and should be studied further.

Received November 28, 2005; revision received December 16, 2005; accepted December 20, 2005.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Lai SM, Duncan PW. Stroke recovery profile and the Modified Rankin assessment. Neuroepidemiology. 2001; 20: 26–30.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Saver JL. Number needed to treat estimates incorporating effects over the entire range of clinical outcomes: novel derivation method and application to thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke. Arch Neurol. 2004; 61: 1066–1070.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Adams HP Jr, Leclerc JR, Bluhmki E, Clarke W, Hansen MD, Hacke W. Measuring outcomes as a function of baseline severity of ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004; 18: 124–129.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Young FB, Lees KR, Weir CJ. Improving trial power through use of prognosis-adjusted end points. Stroke. 2005; 36: 597–601.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Adams HP Jr, Davis PH, Leira EC, Chang KC, Bendixen BH, Clarke WR, Woolson RF, Hansen MD. Baseline NIH Stroke Scale score strongly predicts outcome after stroke: a report of the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Neurology. 1999; 53: 126–131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Lyden P, Lu M, Jackson C, Marler J, Kothari R, Brott T, Zivin J. Underlying structure of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: results of a factor analysis. NINDS tPA Stroke Trial Investigators. Stroke. 1999; 30: 2347–2354.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Brown DL, Johnston KC, Wagner DP, Haley EC Jr. Predicting major neurological improvement with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator treatment of stroke. Stroke. 2004; 35: 147–150.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Young FB, Weir CJ, Lees KR. Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale with disability outcome measures in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2005; 36: 2187–2192.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. The Publications Committee for the Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Investigators. Low molecular weight heparinoid, ORG 10172 (Danaparoid), and outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 1998; 279: 1265–1272.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Diener HC, Hacke W, Hennerici M, Radberg J, Hantson L, De Keyser J. Lubeluzole in acute ischemic stroke. A double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial. Lubeluzole International Study Group. Stroke. 1996; 27: 76–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Grotta J. Lubeluzole treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The US and Canadian Lubeluzole Ischemic Stroke Study Group. Stroke. 1997; 28: 2338–2346.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Steiner T, Bluhmki E, Kaste M, Toni D, Trouillas P, von Kummer R, Hacke W. The ECASS 3-hour cohort. Secondary analysis of ECASS data by time stratification. ECASS Study Group European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998; 8: 198–203.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C, von Kummer R, Davalos A, Meier D, Larrue V, Bluhmki E, Davis S, Donnan G, Schneider D, Diez-Tejedor E, Trouillas P. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Lancet. 1998; 352: 1245–1251.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Lyden P, Shuaib A, Ng K, Levin K, Atkinson RP, Rajput A, Wechsler L, Ashwood T, Claesson L, Odergren T, Salazar-Grueso E. Clomethiazole Acute Stroke Study in ischemic stroke (CLASS-I): final results. Stroke. 2002; 33: 122–128.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Burger K, Jordan J, Moshier E, Godbold J, Brown DM, Levine S. The change in National Institutes of Stroke Scale score over time in the NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study. Stroke. 2005; 36: 494.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Khatri, R. A. Taylor, V. Palumbo, V. Rajajee, J. M. Katz, J. A. Chalela, A. Geers, J. Haymore, D. M. Kolansky, S. E. Kasner, et al. The safety and efficacy of thrombolysis for strokes after cardiac catheterization. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 4, 2008; 51(9): 906 - 911. [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]

				P. Khatri and J. Broderick Measuring Treatment Effect in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, September 1, 2006; 37(9): 2204 - 2204. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/3/920    most recent 01.STR.0000202679.88377.e4v1 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 Bruno, A. Articles by Williams, L. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bruno, A. Articles by Williams, L. S. Related Collections Acute Cerebral Infarction Other Stroke