CANLI
Yükleniyor Veriler getiriliyor…
/ Atıflar / Detay

Atıf Detayı

Kurum makalesi · Scopus üzerinden alınan atıf kaydı

Kurumun Atıf Alan Makalesi
Atıf Alan Yayın
Efficacy of nitric oxide, with or without continuing antihypertensive treatment, for management of high blood pressure in acute stroke (ENOS): A partial-factorial randomised controlled trial
Lancet Cilt 385 ss. 617-628
Scopus Open Access Toplam 299 atıf DOI
Background High blood pressure is associated with poor outcome after stroke. Whether blood pressure should be lowered early after stroke, and whether to continue or temporarily withdraw existing antihypertensive drugs, is not known. We assessed outcomes after stroke in patients given drugs to lower their blood pressure. Methods In our multicentre, partial-factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients admitted to hospital with an acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke and raised systolic blood pressure (systolic 140-220 mm Hg) to 7 days of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (5 mg per day), started within 48 h of stroke onset, or to no glyceryl trinitrate (control group). A subset of patients who were taking antihypertensive drugs before their stroke were also randomly assigned to continue or stop taking these drugs. The primary outcome was function, assessed with the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days by observers masked to treatment assignment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN99414122. Findings Between July 20, 2001, and Oct 14, 2013, we enrolled 4011 patients. Mean blood pressure was 167 (SD 19) mm Hg/90 (13) mm Hg at baseline (median 26 h [16-37] after stroke onset), and was significantly reduced on day 1 in 2000 patients allocated to glyceryl trinitrate compared with 2011 controls (difference -7·0 [95% CI -8·5 to -5·6] mm Hg/-3·5 [-4·4 to -2·6] mm Hg; both p<0·0001), and on day 7 in 1053 patients allocated to continue antihypertensive drugs compared with 1044 patients randomised to stop them (difference -9·5 [95% CI -11·8 to -7·2] mm Hg/-5·0 [-6·4 to -3·7] mm Hg; both p<0·0001). Functional outcome at day 90 did not differ in either treatment comparison - the adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for worse outcome with glyceryl trinitrate versus no glyceryl trinitrate was 1·01 (95% CI 0·91-1·13; p=0·83), and with continue versus stop antihypertensive drugs OR was 1·05 (0·90-1·22; p=0·55). Interpretation In patients with acute stroke and high blood pressure, transdermal glyceryl trinitrate lowered blood pressure and had acceptable safety but did not improve functional outcome. We show no evidence to support continuing prestroke antihypertensive drugs in patients in the first few days after acute stroke. Funding UK Medical Research Council.
Atıf Kaynağı
Atıf Yapan Yayın
Central adjudication of serious adverse events did not affect trial’s safety results: Data from the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) trial
Plos One Cilt 13
Scopus Havuzumuzda Open Access 8 atıf almış
Background and purpose Central adjudication of serious adverse events (SAEs) can be undertaken in clinical trials, especially for open-label studies where outcome assessment may be at risk of bias. This study explored the effect of central adjudication of SAEs on the safety results of the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) Trial. Methods ENOS assigned patients with acute stroke at random to receive either transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) or no GTN and to Stop or Continue previous antihypertensive treatment. SAEs were reported by local investigators who were not blinded to treatment allocation. Central adjudicators, blinded to treatment allocation, reviewed the investigators reports and used evidence available to confirm or re-categorise the classification of event, likely causality, diagnosis and expectedness of event. Results Of 4011 patients enrolled in ENOS, 1473 SAEs were reported by local investigators; this was reduced to 1444 after the review by adjudicators, with 29 re-classified as not an SAE. There was fair agreement between investigators and adjudicators regarding likely causality, with 808 agreements and 644 disagreements (56% crude agreement, weighted kappa, κ = 0.31). Agreement increased upon dichotomisation of the causality categories, with 1432 agreements and 20 disagreements (99% crude agreement, kappa = 0.54). Repeating the main trial safety analysis with investigator reported events showed that adjudication had no effect on the main trial safety conclusions. Conclusions In a large trial, with many SAEs reported, central adjudication of these events did not affect trial conclusions. This suggests that adjudication of SAEs in a clinical trial where the intervention already has a well-established safety profile may not be necessary. Potential efficiency savings (financial, logistical) can be made through not adjudicating SAEs.
Atıf Yapan Makale Bilgileri
Kurumlar (13)
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi New Delhi, India
Általános Orvostudományi Kar Budapest, Hungary
Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing, China
Dalhousie University, Faculty of Medicine Halifax, Canada
George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures Targu Mures, Romania
Hawke's Bay Hospital Hastings, New Zealand
Hospital Universitario La Paz Madrid, Spain
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine London, United Kingdom
Oslo Universitetssykehus Oslo, Norway
Selçuk Tip Fakültesi Konya, Turkey