S. Deltour

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) has not yet proven its efficacy on stroke prognosis or in the reduction of MRI infarct growth. The INSULINFARCT study aims at determining in patients with hyperacute stroke whether IIT, with a better control of poststroke hyperglycemia, would reduce subsequent MRI infarct growth than usual care with subcutaneous insulin. METHODS: One hundred eighty patients with MRI-proven ischemic stroke and with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale from 5 to 25 at admission (<6 hours) were randomized to receive IIT or usual subcutaneous insulin for 24 hours. Admission hyperglycemia was not required for recruitment. Control MRI and 3-month follow-up (with functional outcome and serious adverse events) were planned. The primary objective was to detect a difference in the proportion of patients with mean capillary glucose test <7 mmol/L during 24 hours. The secondary objective was to investigate whether IIT would reduce infarct growth. The analysis was planned in intention-to-treat. Patients with >3 missing capillary glucose test were excluded (n=4). RESULTS: The proportion of patients with mean capillary glucose test <7 mmol/L in the first 24 hours was higher in the IIT group (95.4% [83 of 87] versus 67.4% [60 of 89]; P<0.0001). The infarct growth was lower in the subcutaneous insulin group (median, 10.8 cm(3); 95% CI, 6.5-22.4 versus 27.9 cm(3); 14.6-40.7; 60% of increase; P=0.04). The 3-month functional outcome (45.6% [41 of 90] versus 45.6% [41 of 90]), death (15.6% [14 of 90] versus 10% [9 of 90]), and serious adverse events (38.9% [35 of 90] versus 35.6% [32 of 90]) were similar in the subcutaneous insulin and IIT group. CONCLUSIONS: The IIT regimen improved glucose control in the first 24 hours of stroke but was associated with larger infarct growths. IIT cannot be recommended in hyperacute ischemic stroke. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00472381.

<h3>Introduction</h3> Over half of patients with irritable bowel syndrome have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licensed pharmacological therapies in IBS-D and IBS-M is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty. <h3>Methods</h3> We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and clinicaltrials.gov through November 2018 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of licensed pharmacological therapies in adults with IBS-D or IBS-M. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of all pharmacological therapies were reported as a pooled relative risk of remaining symptomatic with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their P-score. <h3>Results</h3> We identified 18 eligible RCTs (7 alosetron, 5 ramosetron, 2 rifaximin, 4 eluxadoline), containing 9844 patients. All were superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS-D or IBS-M at 12 weeks, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoint for trials in IBS (Figure 1). Alosetron 1mg twice-daily ranked first for efficacy, based on the FDA-recommended composite endpoint of improvement in both abdominal pain and stool consistency (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80, P-score = 0.97), effect on global symptoms of IBS, and effect on stool consistency. Ramosetron 2.5mcg once-daily was ranked first for effect on abdominal pain (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.85, P-score = 0.94). Total numbers of adverse events were significantly greater with alosetron 1mg twice-daily and ramosetron 2.5mcg, once-daily, compared with placebo. Rifaximin 550mg three times daily ranked first for safety. Constipation was significantly more common with all drugs, except rifaximin 550mg three times daily. <h3>Conclusions</h3> In a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.

Importance: Treatment with remote ischemic perconditioning has been reported to reduce brain infarction volume in animal models of stroke. Whether this neuroprotective effect was observed in patients with acute ischemic stroke remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether treatment with remote ischemic perconditioning administered to the leg of patients with acute ischemic stroke can reduce brain infarction volume growth. Design, Setting, and Participants: This proof-of-concept multicenter prospective randomized open-label with blinded end point clinical trial was performed from January 12, 2015, to May 2, 2018. Patients were recruited from 11 stroke centers in France. Of the 188 patients who received magnetic resonance imaging within 6 hours of symptom onset and were confirmed to have carotid ischemic stroke, 93 were randomized to receive treatment with lower-limb remote ischemic perconditioning in addition to standard care (the intervention group), and 95 were randomized to receive standard care alone (the control group). Interventions: Randomization on a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with remote ischemic perconditioning (4 cycles of 5-minute inflations and 5-minute deflations to the thigh to 110 mm Hg above systolic blood pressure) in addition to standard care or standard care alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The change in brain infarction volume growth between baseline and 24 hours, measured by a diffusion-weighted sequence of magnetic resonance imaging scans of the brain. Results: A total of 188 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.2 [15.7] years; 98 men [52.1%]) were included in this intention-to-treat analysis. At hospital admission, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-16) and the median brain infarction volume was 11.4 cm3 (IQR, 3.6-35.8 cm3); 164 patients (87.2%) received intravenous thrombolysis, and 64 patients (34.0%) underwent mechanical thrombectomy. The median increase in brain infarction growth was 0.30 cm3 (IQR, 0.11-0.48 cm3) in the intervention group and 0.37 cm3 (IQR, 0.19-0.55 cm3) in the control group (mean between-group difference on loge-transformed change, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.33 to 0.18; P = .57). An excellent outcome (defined as a score of 0-1 on the 90-day modified Rankin Scale or a score equal to the prestroke modified Rankin Scale score) was observed in 46 of 90 patients (51.1%) in the intervention group and 37 of 91 patients (40.7%) in the control group (P = .12). No significant differences in 90-day mortality were observed between the intervention and control groups (14 of 90 patients; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 15.8% vs 10 of 91 patients; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 10.4%, respectively; P = .45) or with symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (4 of 88 patients [4.5%] in both groups; P = .97). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with remote ischemic perconditioning, during or after reperfusion therapies, had no significant effect on brain infarction volume growth at 24 hours after symptom onset. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02189928.

OBJECTIVE: Several small to medium-sized studies indicated a link between cervical artery dissection (CeAD) and migraine. Migrainous CeAD patients were suggested to have different clinical characteristics compared to nonmigraine CeAD patients. We tested these hypotheses in the large Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients (CADISP) population. METHODS: A total of 968 CeAD patients and 653 patients with an ischemic stroke of a cause other than CeAD (non-CeAD IS) were recruited. CeAD patients with stroke (CeAD(stroke), n = 635) were compared with non-CeAD IS patients regarding migraine, clinical characteristics, and outcome. CeAD patients with and without migraine were compared in terms of clinical characteristics and outcome. RESULTS: Migraine was more common among CeAD(stroke) patients compared to non-CeAD IS patients (35.7 vs 27.4%, p = 0.003). The difference was mainly due to migraine without aura (20.2 vs 11.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in prevalence of strokes, arterial distribution, or other clinical or prognostic features between migrainous and nonmigrainous CeAD patients. CONCLUSION: Migraine without aura is more common among CeAD(stroke) patients compared to non-CeAD IS patients. The mechanisms and possible causative link remain to be proved. Although CeAD is often complicated by stroke, our data do not support increased risk of stroke in migrainous CeAD patients.