A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Effects of a Targeted Exposure of Intravenous Repinotan in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Repinotan hydrochloride is a serotonin (5-HT)(1A) receptor full agonist with evidence of neuroprotection in animal models of permanent and transient focal ischemia. The purpose of this Phase IIb study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a targeted exposure to repinotan in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of 681 patients stratified according to whether or not tissue plasminogen activator was administered and then randomly assigned to treatment with repinotan or placebo. A continuous 72-hour intravenous infusion of repinotan or placebo was to be started within 4.5 hours from the onset of ischemic symptoms. A Point-of-Care test was used to adjust the infusion rate if appropriate. The goal of Modified Randomized Exposure Controlled Trial (mRECT) was to show whether repinotan is statistically superior to placebo (alpha or=85) at 3 months, using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: For the intention-to-treat population at 3 months, the response rate on the Barthel Index was 37.1% (127 of 342) for patients on repinotan and 42.4% (143 of 337) for patients taking the placebo (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel probability value=0.149). No apparent safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: mRECT demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a rigorous trial using a short therapeutic window demanding clinical and radiographic criteria to optimize patient selection and a Point-of-Care test to achieve a targeted exposure to repinotan. The study failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit of repinotan. The development of repinotan in acute ischemic stroke was discontinued.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".