Trial reportAnnals of neurology2025
Intravenous Glyburide in Medical and Endovascular-Treated Large-Core Stroke: A Subgroup Analysis of the CHARM Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Annals of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Reperfusion: Adjunctive Therapies Targeting Inflammation, Edema, and Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Ischemic Stroke.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Endovascular Therapy for Extensive Infarction in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Journal of stroke · 2026Review
- Current perspectives on endovascular therapy for large core ischemic stroke.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Glibenclamide for Large Hemispheric Infarction Analyzing mRS and Mortality (CHARM) trial enrolled participants with large hemispheric infarction, randomized to a placebo or intravenous glyburide. Our objective in this post-hoc study was to evaluate the relationship between baseline stroke volume and the potential efficacy of i.v. glyburide.
methodsParticipants enrolled in CHARM and aged ≤70 years were included if a <125 ml ischemic core lesion volume was measured by computed tomography perfusion or diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. The primary endpoint was a shift analysis on the 90-day modified Rankin Scale. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, world region, tissue plasminogen activator, and endovascular thrombectomy.
resultsA total of 147 participants with a baseline large-core stroke volume <125 ml were available for this analysis (mean age 58 years, 37% women, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 18, and the time to study drug was 9.1 ± 2.1 h). The median baseline core volume of 92 mL (IQR 81-107 ml) did not differ by treatment arm. The i.v. glyburide-treated participants had a favorable shift in outcome relative to the placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 2.11, 95% CI 1.10-4.01, p = 0.02). In patients who underwent endovascular thrombectomy, i.v. glyburide-treated subjects had a favorable outcome (adjusted common odds ratio 8.19, 95% CI 1.60-42.0, p = 0.01), fewer decompressive craniectomies (0% vs 25%, P = 0.02), less midline shift (4.2 ± 2.5 mm vs 7.6 ± 5.5 mm, p = 0.02), and lower 90-day mortality (5.6% vs 31%, p = 0.05) compared with the placebo, respectively.
interpretationThis post-hoc analysis of the CHARM trial provides hypothesis-generating evidence that i.v. glyburide may improve outcome in large-core stroke <125 ml, especially among endovascular thrombectomy-treated patients. These results require confirmation in a prospective randomized clinical trial. ANN NEUROL 2025;98:616-624.
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.