4.5 Article

Isosorbide Mononitrate and Cilostazol Treatment in Patients With Symptomatic Cerebral Small Vessel Disease The Lacunar Intervention Trial-2 (LACI-2) Randomized Clinical Trial

期刊

JAMA NEUROLOGY
卷 80, 期 7, 页码 682-692

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.1526

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study tested the feasibility, drug tolerability, safety, and effects of 1-year isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) and cilostazol treatment on vascular, functional, and cognitive outcomes in patients with lacunar stroke. The results showed that ISMN and cilostazol reduced recurrent stroke, dependence, and cognitive impairment, and improved quality of life, with no safety concerns. These agents could prevent other adverse outcomes in cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) and should be tested in large phase 3 trials.
IMPORTANCE Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a common cause of stroke (lacunar stroke), is the most common cause of vascular cognitive impairment, and impairs mobility and mood but has no specific treatment. OBJECTIVE To test the feasibility, drug tolerability, safety, and effects of 1-year isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) and cilostazol treatment on vascular, functional, and cognitive outcomes in patients with lacunar stroke. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Lacunar Intervention Trial-2 (LACI-2) was an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded end-point, randomized clinical trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design. The trial aimed to recruit 400 participants from 26 UK hospital stroke centers between February 5, 2018, and May 31, 2021, with 12-month follow-up. Included participants had clinical lacunar ischemic stroke, were independent, were aged older than 30 years, had compatible brain imaging findings, had capacity to consent, and had no contraindications to (or indications for) the study drugs. Data analysis was performed on August 12, 2022. INTERVENTIONS All patients received guideline stroke prevention treatment and were randomized to ISMN (40-60mg/d), cilostazol (200mg/d), ISMN-cilostazol (40-60 and 200 mg/d, respectively), or no study drug. MAIN OUTCOMES The primary outcome was recruitment feasibility, including retention at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were safety (death), efficacy (composite of vascular events, dependence, cognition, and death), drug adherence, tolerability, recurrent stroke, dependence, cognitive impairment, quality of life (QOL), and hemorrhage. RESULTS Of the 400 participants planned for this trial, 363 (90.8%) were recruited. Their median agewas 64 (IQR, 56.0-72.0) years; 251 (69.1%) were men. The median time between stroke and randomizationwas 79 (IQR, 27.0-244.0) days. A total of 358 patients (98.6%) were retained in the study at 12 months, with 257 of 272 (94.5%) taking 50% or more of the allocated drug. Compared with those participants not receiving that particular drug, neither ISMN (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.09]; P = .16) nor cilostazol (aHR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.05]; P = .10) alone reduced the composite outcome in 297 patients. Isosorbide mononitrate reduced recurrent stroke in 353 patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.23 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.74]; P = .01) and cognitive impairment in 308 patients (aOR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86]; P = .008). Cilostazol reduced dependence in 320 patients (aHR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.72]; P = .006). Combination ISMN-cilostazol reduced the composite (aHR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.92]; P = .02), dependence (aOR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.59]; P = .008), and any cognitive impairment (aOR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.85]; P = .02) and improved QOL (adjusted mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17]; P = .005) in 153 patients. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These results show that the LACI-2 trial was feasible and ISMN and cilostazol were well tolerated and safe. These agents may reduce recurrent stroke, dependence, and cognitive impairment after lacunar stroke, and they could prevent other adverse outcomes in cSVD. Therefore, both agents should be tested in large phase 3 trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据