Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial.

BACKGROUND: It is challenging for outcome assessors to remain blinded during outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. If assessors are able to guess the correct treatment allocation more often than expected based on chance, the assessors may have been not properly blinded. AIMS: We aimed to assess blinding of outcome assessors in a stroke trial with PROBE design and its association with outcome. METHODS: We used data of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days was assessed by local assessors who were unaware of treatment allocation. To assess success of blinding, each assessor was asked to guess the patient's treatment allocation. We assessed whether the percentage of correct guesses was higher than chance (i.e. 50%). The association between correctly guessed treatment allocation and the mRS at 90 days was analyzed with ordinal logistic regression stratified by treatment allocation. We tested for interaction of correctly versus incorrectly guessed treatment allocation with actual treatment allocation on the mRS. Patients with missing data on guessed treatment allocation and patients who died prior to 90-day assessment were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 459 patients were included in this study. The assessors guessed the correct treatment allocation significantly more often than expected (267/459, 58.2%, one-sided p = 0.0003). Correctly guessed treatment allocations were associated with better mRS scores in the intervention group (common odds ratio (cOR): 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50-3.48) and with worse mRS scores in the control group (cOR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83) (pinteraction < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Assessors may not always be truly blinded for treatment allocation in clinical trials, and their guesses may be associated with outcome. Although causality between the assessors' guess and patient outcome cannot be determined, future trials with subjective outcome should make efforts to ensure blinding and should report their blinding method and the success of blinding like the IMS III trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00359424.

Timing of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular stroke treatment.

Introduction: Little is known about the timing of occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) after endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke. A better understanding could optimize in-hospital surveillance time points and duration. The aim of this study was to delineate the probability of sICH over time and to identify factors associated with its timing. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from the Dutch MR CLEAN trial and MR CLEAN Registry. We included adult patients who underwent EVT for an anterior circulation large vessel occlusion within 6.5 h of stroke onset. In patients with sICH (defined as ICH causing an increase of ⩾4 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]), univariable and multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with the timing of sICH. This was defined as the time between end of EVT and the time of first CT-scan on which ICH was seen as a proxy. Results: SICH occurred in 205 (6%) of 3391 included patients. Median time from end of EVT procedure to sICH detection on NCCT was 9.0 [IQR 2.9-22.5] hours, with a rapidly decreasing incidence after 24 h. None of the analyzed factors, including baseline NIHSS, intravenous alteplase treatment, and poor reperfusion at the end of the procedure were associated with the timing of sICH. Conclusion: SICHs primarily occur in the first hours after EVT, and less frequently beyond 24 h. Guidelines that recommend to perform frequent neurological assessments for at least 24 h after intravenous alteplase treatment can be applied to ischemic stroke patients treated with EVT.