Deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (i-DEF): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 trial

BackgroundIron from haemolysed blood is implicated in secondary injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. We aimed to assess the safety of the iron chelator deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage and to establish whether the drug merits investigation in a phase 3 trial.MethodsWe did a multicentre, futility-design, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial at 40 hospitals in Canada and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with primary, spontaneous, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive deferoxamine mesylate (32 mg/kg per day) or placebo (saline) infusions for 3 consecutive days within 24 h of haemorrhage onset. Randomisation was done via a web-based trial-management system centrally in real time, and treatment allocation was concealed from both participants and investigators. The primary outcome was good clinical outcome, which was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at day 90. We did a futility analysis: if the 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants with a good clinical outcome was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, then to move to a phase 3 efficacy trial would be futile. Primary outcome and safety data were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising only participants in whom the study infusions were initiated. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175225, and is completed.FindingsWe recruited 294 participants between Nov 23, 2014, and Nov 10, 2017. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of 144 patients assigned to the deferoxamine mesylate group and 147 assigned to the placebo group. At day 90, among patients with available data for the primary outcome, 48 (34%) of 140 participants in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 47 (33%) of 143 patients in the placebo group, had modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0·6% [90% upper confidence bound 6·8%]). By day 90, 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) of 144 patients in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 78 serious adverse events were reported in 49 (33%) of 147 patients in the placebo group. Ten (7%) participants in the deferoxamine mesylate and 11 (7%) in the placebo group died. None of the deaths were judged to be treatment related.InterpretationDeferoxamine mesylate was safe. However, the primary result showed that further study of the efficacy of deferoxamine mesylate with anticipation that the drug would significantly improve the chance of good clinical outcome (ie, mRS score of 0-2) at day 90 would be futile.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable