MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405195662 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.048601

Factors Influencing Nerinetide Effect on Infarct Volume in Patients Without Alteplase in the Randomized ESCAPE-NA1 Trial

2024· article· en· W4405195662 on OpenAlexaffabout
Johanna M. Ospel, Mayank Goyal, Bijoy K. Menon, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Charlotte Zerna, Raul G. Nogueira, Ryan McTaggart, Andrew M. Demchuk, Alexandre Y. Poppe, Jeremy Rempel, Manish Joshi, Nima Kashani, Kathy Heard, Thalia S. Field, Dar Dowlatshahi, Brian van Adel, Richard H. Swartz, Ruchir Shah, Eric Sauvageau, Volker Puetz, Frank L. Silver, Bruce Campbell, René Chapot, Michael Tymianski, Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaNoNO (Canada)University of WinnipegUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Alberta HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPlaceboStroke (engine)Magnetic resonance imagingPost-hoc analysisFibrinolytic agentInternal medicineAnesthesiaCardiologyTissue plasminogen activatorRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the ESCAPE-NA1 trial (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke), treatment with nerinetide was associated with a smaller infarct volume among patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We assessed the effect of nerinetide on the surrogate imaging outcome of final infarct volume in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase and explored predictors of outcome and modifiers of nerinetide’s effect on infarct volume. METHODS: ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter, randomized trial in which patients with acute stroke with a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score >4, undergoing endovascular thrombectomy, were randomized to receive intravenous nerinetide or placebo. Patients not receiving intravenous alteplase were included in this post hoc secondary analysis of the trial data. Final infarct volume was manually segmented on 24-hour noncontrast computed tomography or diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Predictors of final infarct volume were identified using multivariable linear regression with cubic-root-transformed infarct volume as the dependent variable. Evidence of treatment-by-predictor interaction was tested by including interaction terms in the model. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-six patients (219 who received nerinetide and 227 who received a placebo) out of a total of 1105 enrolled patients were included in this secondary post hoc analysis of the randomized ESCAPE-NA1 trial. Nerinetide was a strong predictor of smaller infarct volume (adjusted β coefficient, −0.35 [95% CI, −0.67 to −0.02]). Other predictors of smaller infarct volume were history of hypertension, good pial collateral filling on multiphase computed tomography angiography, a middle cerebral artery occlusion compared with an internal carotid artery occlusion, lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, lower baseline systolic blood pressure, lower baseline serum glucose, shorter onset-to-randomization time, and higher Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score. There was evidence of a treatment-by-systolic blood pressure and treatment-by-anesthesia interaction: nerinetide attenuated the negative effects of elevated baseline ( P interaction =0.02) and postdose ( P interaction =0.04) systolic blood pressure and use of general anesthesia ( P interaction =0.06) on final infarct volume. We observed a marginally significant interaction with reperfusion status, such that nerinetide may attenuate the harmful effect of poor reperfusion status on infarct volume ( P interaction =0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Nerinetide treatment was strongly associated with smaller final infarct volumes among patients not cotreated with alteplase. The reduction in infarct volume was greater among patients with poor prognostic factors. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02930018.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207