Trial reportJournal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association
A matched comparison of eptifibatide plus rt-PA versus rt-PA alone in acute ischemic stroke.
Trial report in Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- CSF inflammatory response after intraventricular hemorrhage.Neurology · 2017Trial
- Antiplatelet Use in Ischemic Stroke.The Annals of pharmacotherapy · 2022Review
- Eptifibatide use in ischemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy: A matched cohort analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of hypernormal shortened door to needle time (DNT) plus individualized low-dose alteplase therapy in treating acute ischemic stroke.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Combined Approach to Lysis Utilizing Eptifibatide and Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator (rt-PA) in Acute Ischemic Stroke-Enhanced Regimen (CLEAR-ER) trial found that intravenous rt-PA plus eptifibatide (combination arm) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) was safe and had a direction of effect that would justify a phase III trial. CLEAR-ER had unanticipated imbalances between treatment groups. We compared the rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and good outcomes for combination therapy patients in the CLEAR-ER trial to a matched cohort of rt-PA patients from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) trial.
methodsCLEAR-ER was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study; rt-PA-eligible AIS patients were randomized to .6 mg/kg rt-PA plus eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus and .75mcg/kg/min two-hour infusion) versus standard rt-PA (.9 mg/kg). For this analysis, we matched 1:1 CLEAR-ER combination therapy patients with rt-PA arm NINDS trial patients. Patients were matched by age, gender, race, baseline modified Rankin Scale score, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and stroke onset to rt-PA time.
resultsFifty-four matches were made. One (1.8%) sICH occurred in each group (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] .01-78.50). At 90 days, 51.8% of the CLEAR-ER group had good outcomes versus 46.3% in the NINDS rt-PA group (OR 1.30, 95% CI .57-2.96). For subjects with baseline NIHSS score > 12 (CLEAR-ER median NIHSS score), 38.5% of the CLEAR-ER group had good outcomes versus 23.1% in the NINDS group (OR 2.33, 95% CI .60-9.02).
conclusionsThe safety and direction of effect of eptifibatide plus rt-PA were confirmed. A phase III trial is needed to determine the efficacy of eptifibatide plus rt-PA for improving long-term outcomes after AIS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.