This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 34/11/2676    most recent 01.STR.0000096210.36741.E7v1 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 Young, F. B. Articles by Weir, C. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Young, F. B. Articles by Weir, C. J. Related Collections Emergency treatment of Stroke Neuroprotectors Thrombolysis

(Stroke. 2003;34:2676.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Strengthening Acute Stroke Trials Through Optimal Use of Disability End Points

Fiona B. Young, BSc; Kennedy R. Lees, MD, FRCP Christopher J. Weir, PhD for the Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection (GAIN) International Trial Steering Committee and Investigators

From the Division of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Gardiner Institute, Western Infirmary (F.B.Y., K.R.L.), and Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow (C.J.W.), Glasgow, Scotland.

Reprint requests to Fiona B. Young, Division of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Gardiner Institute, Western Infirmary, Glasgow G11 6NT, Scotland. E-mail Fby1w{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk

Background and Purpose— Suboptimal choices of primary end point for acute stroke trials may have contributed to inconclusive results. The Barthel Index (BI) and Rankin Scale (RS) have been widely used and analyzed in various ways. We sought to investigate the most powerful end point for use in acute stroke trials.

Methods— Data from the Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection (GAIN) International Trial were used to simulate 24 000 clinical trials exploring various patterns and magnitudes of treatment effect and thus to estimate the statistical power for a range of end points based on the BI or RS.

Results— RS end points were more powerful than BI end points. End points dichotomized toward the favorable extreme of either scale or adjusted according to baseline prognosis (patient-specific end point) were among the most powerful. Combining RS and BI in a global end point was also successful. Improvements in statistical power indicated that using a RS end point instead of BI 60 could reduce the sample size by up to 84% (95% CI, 80% to 87%), 73% (95% CI, 68% to 79%) for a patient-specific BI end point, or 81% (95% CI, 76% to 85%) for a global end point.

Conclusions— The RS and global end points are preferable to BI end points; the position of the cut point is also important. Better choices of end point substantially strengthen trial power for a given trial size or allow reduced sample sizes without loss of statistical power.

Key Words: clinical trials • end point determination • neuroprotection • stroke, acute • thrombolysis

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Ali, P. M.W. Bath, J. Curram, S. M. Davis, H.-C. Diener, G. A. Donnan, M. Fisher, B. A. Gregson, J. Grotta, W. Hacke, et al. The Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive Stroke, June 1, 2007; 38(6): 1905 - 1910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Aslanyan, C. J. Weir, K. W. Muir, K. R. Lees, and for the IMAGES Study Investigators Magnesium for Treatment of Acute Lacunar Stroke Syndromes: Further Analysis of the IMAGES Trial Stroke, April 1, 2007; 38(4): 1269 - 1273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Banks and C. A. Marotta Outcomes Validity and Reliability of the Modified Rankin Scale: Implications for Stroke Clinical Trials: A Literature Review and Synthesis Stroke, March 1, 2007; 38(3): 1091 - 1096. [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. Spears, K. G. TerBrugge, M. Moosavian, W. Montanera, R. A. Willinsky, M. C. Wallace, and M. Tymianski A Discriminative Prediction Model of Neurological Outcome for Patients Undergoing Surgery of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations Stroke, June 1, 2006; 37(6): 1457 - 1464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. B. Young, C. J. Weir, K. R. Lees, and for the GAIN International Trial Steering Committe Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale With Disability Outcome Measures in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, October 1, 2005; 36(10): 2187 - 2192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Uyttenboogaart, R. E. Stewart, P. C.A.J. Vroomen, J. De Keyser, and G.-J. Luijckx Optimizing Cutoff Scores for the Barthel Index and the Modified Rankin Scale for Defining Outcome in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, September 1, 2005; 36(9): 1984 - 1987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. B. Young, K. R. Lees, C. J. Weir, and for the GAIN International Trial Steering Committe Improving Trial Power Through Use of Prognosis-Adjusted End Points Stroke, March 1, 2005; 36(3): 597 - 601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Merino, S. U. Lattimore, and S. Warach Telephone Assessment of Stroke Outcome Is Reliable Stroke, February 1, 2005; 36(2): 232 - 233. [Full Text] [PDF]