Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of glibenclamide therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage (GATE-ICH): A multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded-endpoint, phase 2 clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Glibenclamide is a promising agent for treating brain oedema, but whether it improves clinical outcomes in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of glibenclamide treatment in patients with acute ICH.

Methods

The Glibenclamide Advantage in Treating Oedema after Intracerebral Haemorrhage (GATE-ICH) study was a randomised controlled phase 2 clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the northwest of China, recruiting patients with acute ganglia ICH no more than 72 h after onset from Dec 12, 2018 to Sept 23, 2020. During the first 7 days after enrolment, patients randomly assigned to the glibenclamide group were given glibenclamide orally (1.25 mg, 3/day) and standard care, while patients randomly assigned to the control group were given standard care alone. The computer-generated randomisation sequence was prepared by a statistician not involved in the rest of the study. Randomisation was computer-generated with a block size of four. The allocation results were unblinded to participants and investigators. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with poor outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of ≥3) at day 90. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03741530).

Findings

220 participants were randomised and 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 56 [11] years; sex, 128 [64.0%] male and 72 [36.0%] female) were included in the final analysis, with 101 participants randomly assigned to the control group and 99 to the glibenclamide group. The incidence of poor outcome at day 90 was 20/99 (20.2%) in glibenclamide group and 30/101 (29.7%) in control group (absolute difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2%-21.8%; P = 0.121) with adjusted odds ratios of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.24-1.20; P = 0.129). No significant difference was found in the overall rates of adverse events or serious adverse events between groups. However, the incidence of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia was significantly higher in glibenclamide group than control group (15/99 [15.2%] vs 0/101 [0.0%]; absolute difference, 15.2%; 95% CI, 7.5%-24.1%; P < 0.001).

Interpretation

Our study provides no evidence that glibenclamide (1.25 mg, 3/day) significantly reduces the proportion of poor outcome at day 90 after ICH. In addition, glibenclamide could result in higher incidence of hypoglycaemia. Larger trials of glibenclamide with optimised medication regimen are warranted.

Funding

Shaanxi Province Key Research and Development Project (2017DCXL-SF-02-02) and Shaanxi Province Special Support Program for Leading Talents in Scientific and Technological Innovation (tzjhjw).

SUBMITTER: Zhao J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9513728 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of glibenclamide therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage (GATE-ICH): A multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded-endpoint, phase 2 clinical trial.

Zhao Jingjing J Song Changgeng C Li Deshuai D Yang Xiai X Yu Liping L Wang Kangjun K Wu Jun J Wang Xiaofeng X Li Dongsong D Zhang Bo B Li Binyong B Guo Jun J Feng Weikui W Fu Feng F Gu Xinrong X Qian Jian J Li Jialong J Yuan Xiangjun X Liu Qiuwu Q Chen Jiang J Wang Xiaocheng X Liu Yi Y Wei Dong D Wang Ling L Shang Lei L Yang Fang F Jiang Wen W

EClinicalMedicine 20220923

<h4>Background</h4>Glibenclamide is a promising agent for treating brain oedema, but whether it improves clinical outcomes in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of glibenclamide treatment in patients with acute ICH.<h4>Methods</h4>The Glibenclamide Advantage in Treating Oedema after Intracerebral Haemorrhage (GATE-ICH) study was a randomised controlled phase 2 clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the no ...[more]

PMID: 36177443

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute stroke due to supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Open craniotomy haematoma evacuation has not been found to have any benefit in large randomised trials. We assessed whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis (MISTIE), with the aim of decreasing clot size to 15 mL or less, would improve functional outcome in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. METHODS:MISTIE III was an open-label, blinded endpoint, phase 3 trial done at 78 hospitals in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Asia. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with spontaneous, non-traumatic, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage of 30 mL or more. We used a computer-generated number sequence with a block size of four or six to centrally randomise patients to image-guided MISTIE treatment (1·0 mg alteplase every 8 h for up to nine doses) or standard medical care. Primary outcome was good functional outcome, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 365 days, adjusted for group differences in prespecified baseline covariates (stability intracerebral haemorrhage size, age, Glasgow Coma Scale, stability intraventricular haemorrhage size, and clot location). Analysis of the primary efficacy outcome was done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all eligible, randomly assigned patients who were exposed to treatment. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01827046. FINDINGS:Between Dec 30, 2013, and Aug 15, 2017, 506 patients were randomly allocated: 255 (50%) to the MISTIE group and 251 (50%) to standard medical care. 499 patients (n=250 in the MISTIE group; n=249 in the standard medical care group) received treatment and were included in the mITT analysis set. The mITT primary adjusted efficacy analysis estimated that 45% of patients in the MISTIE group and 41% patients in the standard medical care group had achieved an mRS score of 0-3 at 365 days (adjusted risk difference 4% [95% CI -4 to 12]; p=0·33). Sensitivity analyses of 365-day mRS using generalised ordered logistic regression models adjusted for baseline variables showed that the estimated odds ratios comparing MISTIE with standard medical care for mRS scores higher than 5 versus 5 or less, higher than 4 versus 4 or less, higher than 3 versus 3 or less, and higher than 2 versus 2 or less were 0·60 (p=0·03), 0·84 (p=0·42), 0·87 (p=0·49), and 0·82 (p=0·44), respectively. At 7 days, two (1%) of 255 patients in the MISTIE group and ten (4%) of 251 patients in the standard medical care group had died (p=0·02) and at 30 days, 24 (9%) patients in the MISTIE group and 37 (15%) patients in the standard medical care group had died (p=0·07). The number of patients with symptomatic bleeding and brain bacterial infections was similar between the MISTIE and standard medical care groups (six [2%] of 255 patients vs three [1%] of 251 patients; p=0·33 for symptomatic bleeding; two [1%] of 255 patients vs 0 [0%] of 251 patients; p=0·16 for brain bacterial infections). At 30 days, 76 (30%) of 255 patients in the MISTIE group and 84 (33%) of 251 patients in the standard medical care group had one or more serious adverse event, and the difference in number of serious adverse events between the groups was statistically significant (p=0·012). INTERPRETATION:For moderate to large intracerebral haemorrhage, MISTIE did not improve the proportion of patients who achieved a good response 365 days after intracerebral haemorrhage. The procedure was safely adopted by our sample of surgeons. FUNDING:National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Genentech.

Project description:ObjectivesBecause of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice.MethodsThis was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events.ResultsSignificantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias.ConclusionsCelecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Project description:BackgroundAntiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events for people with occlusive vascular disease, although it might increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Patients surviving the commonest subtype of intracranial haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, are at risk of both haemorrhagic and occlusive vascular events, but whether antiplatelet therapy can be used safely is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative and absolute effects of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and whether this risk might exceed any reduction of occlusive vascular events.MethodsThe REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (≥18 years) who were taking antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage, discontinued antithrombotic therapy, and survived for 24 h. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. We followed participants for the primary outcome (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) for up to 5 years. We analysed data from all randomised participants using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for minimisation covariates. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN71907627).FindingsBetween May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were recruited a median of 76 days (IQR 29-146) after intracerebral haemorrhage onset: 268 were assigned to start and 269 (one withdrew) to avoid antiplatelet therapy. Participants were followed for a median of 2·0 years (IQR [1·0- 3·0]; completeness 99·3%). 12 (4%) of 268 participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had recurrence of intracerebral haemorrhage compared with 23 (9%) of 268 participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·25-1·03]; p=0·060). 18 (7%) participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy experienced major haemorrhagic events compared with 25 (9%) participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (0·71 [0·39-1·30]; p=0·27), and 39 [15%] participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had major occlusive vascular events compared with 38 [14%] allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (1·02 [0·65-1·60]; p=0·92).InterpretationThese results exclude all but a very modest increase in the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage with antiplatelet therapy for patients on antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage is probably too small to exceed the established benefits of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention.FundingBritish Heart Foundation.

Project description:IntroductionKnowledge about uptake and workflow metrics of hyperacute treatments in patients with non-traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) in the emergency department is scarce.MethodsSingle-centre retrospective study of consecutive patients with ICH between 01/2018-08/2020. We assessed uptake and workflow metrics of acute therapies overall and according to referral mode (stroke code, transfer from other hospital, or other).ResultsWe enrolled 332 patients (age 73 years, IQR: 63-81 and GCS 14 points, IQR: 11-15, onset-to-admission time 284 min, IQR: 111-708 min), of whom 101 patients (35%) had lobar haematoma. Mode of referral was stroke code in 129 patients (38%), transfer from other hospital in 143 patients (43%), and arrival by other means in 60 patients (18%). Overall, 143 of 216 (66%) patients with systolic blood pressure >150 mm Hg received IV-antihypertensive treatment, and 67 of 76 (88%) on therapeutic oral anticoagulation received prothrombin complex concentrate treatment (PCC). Forty-six patients (14%) received any neurosurgical intervention within 3 h of admission. Median treatment times from admission to first IV-antihypertensive treatment were 38 min (IQR: 18-72 min) and 59 min (IQR: 37-111 min) for PCC, with significant differences according to mode of referral (p < 0.001) but not early arrival (≤6 h of onset, p = 0.92). The median time in the emergency department was 139 min (IQR: 85-220 min), and among patients with elevated blood pressure, only 44% achieved a successful control (<140 mm Hg) during ED stay. In multivariate analysis, code ICH concordant treatment was associated with significantly lower odds for in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12-0.73, p = 0.008) and non-significant trends towards better functional outcome measured using the modified Rankin scale score at 3 months (aOR for ordinal shift 0.54, 95% CI: 0.26-1.12, p = 0.097).ConclusionUptake of hyperacute therapies for ICH treatment in the ED is heterogeneous. Treatment delays are short, but not all patients achieve treatment targets during ED stay. Code ICH-concordant treatment may improve clinical outcomes. Further improvements seem achievable by advocating for a "code ICH" to streamline acute treatments.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of glibenclamide therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage (GATE-ICH): A multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded-endpoint, phase 2 clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Efficacy and safety of glibenclamide therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage (GATE-ICH): A multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded-endpoint, phase 2 clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets