Cited by 156Acute Ischemic Stroke ManagementStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsNeurological Disorders and Treatments

Enhancing the Development and Approval of Acute Stroke Therapies: Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable

Open access
Fisher, Marc·2005·Stroke

Abstract

Background— Previous Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) meetings focused on preclinical evidence of drug efficacy and enhancing acute stroke trial design and performance. A fourth (STAIR-IV) was held to discuss relevant issues related to acute stroke drug development and regulatory approval. Summary of Review— The STAIR-IV meeting had 3 main focus areas. The first topic was novel approaches to statistical design of acute stroke trials and appropriate outcome measures. The second focus was the need for better cooperation among participants in stroke therapy development that may be addressed through a national consortium of stroke trial centers in the United States and elsewhere. Lastly, regulatory issues related to the approval of novel mono and multiple acute stroke therapies were discussed. Conclusions— The development of additional acute stroke therapies represents a large unmet need with many remaining challenges and also opportunities to incorporate novel approaches to clinical trial design that will lead to regulatory approval. The STAIR-IV meeting explored new concepts of trial methodology and data analysis, initiatives for implementing a US clinical trialist consortium, and pertinent regulatory issues to expedite approval of novel therapies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000173403.60553.27

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Nikolai C. Brun, Alastair M. Buchan, Geraldine A. Cahalline, Louis R. Caplan, Ridong Chen, Janice A. Corrozola, Stephen M. Davis, Lori Enney, Larry B. Goldstein, Savion Gropper, Werner Hacke, Steven B. Hall, John Hallenbeck, Daniel F. Hanley, Vladimir Hachinski, Douglas R. Hansmann, Martina Herrmann, George Howard, Orest Hurko, Sonja Ilic, Edward C. Jauch, S. Claiborne Johnston, Markku Kaste, Michael Krams, Jacques R. LeClerc, Kennedy R. Lees, David E. Levy, Marie Luby, Kevin F. MacDonald, Michael Mackaravitz, Kevin McKenna, Patrik Michel, Tomas Oder- gren, Gilmore N. O'Neill, Carl C. Peck, Melissa C. Rosenberg, Hiroshi Sato, Jeffrey L. Saver, Armin Schneider, Dara A. Shulman, Brett E. Skolnick, Veronika I. Skvortsova, M. C. Smith, Mariola Soehngen, Wolfgang Soehngen, Judith Spilker, David A. Stamler, Arnold B. Sterman, Jackson Streeter, Michael D. Walker, Warren W. Wasniewski, Margaret M. Zaleska, Sibilla Zimmermann- Meinzingen, Justin A. Zivin. References 1. Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable. Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. Stroke. 1999;30:2752-2758.
  2. Fisher M for the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable. Recom- mendations for advancing development of acute stroke therapies. Stroke. 2003;34:1539 -1546.
  3. Berry D, Mueller P, Grieve A, Smith M, Parke T, Krams M. Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. In: Gatsonis C, Kass RE, Carriquiry A, Gelman A, Higdon D, Pauler D, Verdinelli I, eds. Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002:99 -181.
  4. Malakoff D. Bayes offers a 'new' way to make sense of numbers. Science. 1999;286:1460 -1464.
  5. Krams M, Lees KR, Hacke W, Grieve AP, Orgogozo JM, Ford GA. Acute Stroke Therapy by Inhibition of Neutrophils (ASTIN): an adaptive dose- response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2003;34: 2543-2548.
  6. van Swieten Sc, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten MJA, van Gijn J. Inter- observer agreement of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604 -607.
  7. Katz R. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. An FDA perspective. NeuroRx. 2004;1:189 -195.
  8. Bosworth HB, Horner RD, Edwards LJ, Matchar DB. Depression and other determinants of values placed on current health state by stroke patients: evidence from the VA Acute Stroke (VAST) Study. Stroke. 2000;31: 2603-2609.
  9. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensi- tivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131-2140.
  10. Buck D, Jacoby A, Massey A, and Ford G. Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 2000;31:2004 -2010.
  11. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61-65.
  12. Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB, Bonito A, Witter DM, Enarson C, Matchar, D. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke. 1997;28:740 -745.
  13. Schulz U, Baird T, Grant M, et al. Validity of a structured interview for the modified Rankin scale: comparison with other stroke assessment scales. Stroke. 2001;32:333 Abstract.
  14. Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke. 1996;27: 1812-1816.
  15. Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Qualitative com- parison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke: United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke. 1998;29:63-68.
  16. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S; Glycine Antagonist in Neu- roprotection Americans Investigators. Rasch analysis of the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950 -963.
  17. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Bode R, Perera S, DeRosa J. Stroke Impact Scale-16: a brief assessment of physical function. Neurology. 2003;60:291-296.
  18. Sandercock P, Hennirici MG, Orgogozo JM, Davis SM, Gorelick PB. Mega trials versus small trials in stroke. In: Fisher M, Bogousslavsky J, eds. Current Review of Cerebrovascular Disease. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Current Medicine; 2001:241-247.
  19. The ATLANTIS, ECASS and NINDS rt-PA Study Group Investigators. Association of outcome with early treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet. 2004;363:768 -774.
  20. Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Have randomized controlled trials of neuropro- tective drugs been underpowered? Stroke. 2001;32:669 -674.
  21. Adams H, for the AbESTT-II Investigators. Abciximab in Emergent Stroke Treatment Trial-II. Presented at the 28th International Stroke Conference (February 2004). Stroke. 2004;35:252 Abstract.
  22. Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaborators, Bath PMW. Optimising the statistical analysis of functional outcome in stroke trials. Stroke. 2003;34:316 Abstract.
  23. Donnan GA, Davis SM, Kaste M. Recommendations for the relationship between sponsors and investigators in the design and conduct of clinical stroke trials. Stroke. 2003;34:1041-1045.
  24. The Interventional Management of Stroke Study Investigators. Combined intravenous and intra-arterial recanalization for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2004;35:904 -911.
  25. Kidwell CS, Liebeskind DS, Starkman S, Saver JL. Trends in acute ischemic stroke trials through the 20th century. Stroke. 2001;32:1349 -1359.
  26. New drug and antibiotic and biological drug product regulations: accelerated approval-FDA final rule. Fed Regist. 1992;57:58942-58960.
  27. Fisher M, Ratan R. New perspectives on developing acute stroke therapy. Ann Neurol. 2003;53:10 -20.
  28. Mayeux R. Biomarkers: potential uses and limitations. NeuroRx. 2004;1: 182-188.
  29. Fisher M, Davalos A. Emerging therapies for cerebrovascular disorders. Stroke. 2004;35:367-369.
  30. Warach S, Pettigrew LC, Dashe JF, Pullicino P, Lefkowitz DM, Sabounjian L. Effects of citicoline on ischemic lesions as measured by diffusion- weighted magnetic resonance imaging: Citicoline 010 investigators. Ann Neurol. 2000;48:713-722.
  31. Peck C, Rubin DB, Sheiner LB. Hypothesis: a single clinical trial plus causal evidence of effectiveness is sufficient for drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;73:481-490.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisher, M.
Affiliations
UMass Memorial Health Care (US)
Corresponding author
Fisher, Marc
Venue
Stroke
Published
2005-08
Volume
36
Issue
8
Pages
1808-1813
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2007847945
Cited by
156
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
acute stroke therapy, drug development, regulatory approval, clinical trial design, statistical design, outcome measures, unmet medical needs
MeSH terms
Brain Ischemia, Clinical Trials as Topic, Health Planning Guidelines, Humans, Research Design, Thrombolytic Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Drug Approval, Disease Management, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review