Minimal sufficient balance randomization for sequential randomized controlled trial designs: results from the ESCAPE trial

Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in Canada (AcT): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, registry-linked, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase bolus followed by infusion is a global standard of care for patients with acute ischaemic stroke. We aimed to determine whether tenecteplase given as a single bolus might increase reperfusion compared with this standard of care.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, registry-linked, randomised, controlled trial (AcT), patients were enrolled from 22 primary and comprehensive stroke centres across Canada. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, with a diagnosis of ischaemic stroke causing disabling neurological deficit, presenting within 4·5 h of symptom onset, and eligible for thrombolysis per Canadian guidelines. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using a previously validated minimal sufficient balance algorithm to balance allocation by site and a secure real-time web-based server, to either intravenous tenecteplase (0·25 mg/kg to a maximum of 25 mg) or alteplase (0·9 mg/kg to a maximum of 90mg; 0·09 mg/kg as a bolus and then a 60 min infusion of the remaining 0·81 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90-120 days after treatment, assessed via blinded review in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment who did not withdraw consent). Non-inferiority was met if the lower 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome between the tenecteplase and alteplase groups was more than -5%. Safety was assessed in all patients who received any of either thrombolytic agent and who were reported as treated. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03889249, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 10, 2019, and Jan 25, 2022, 1600 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to tenecteplase (n=816) or alteplase (n=784), of whom 1577 were included in the ITT population (n=806 tenecteplase; n=771 alteplase). The median age was 74 years (IQR 63-83), 755 (47·9%) of 1577 patients were female and 822 (52·1%) were male. As of data cutoff (Jan 21, 2022), 296 (36·9%) of 802 patients in the tenecteplase group and 266 (34·8%) of 765 in the alteplase group had an mRS score of 0-1 at 90-120 days (unadjusted risk difference 2·1% [95% CI - 2·6 to 6·9], meeting the prespecified non-inferiority threshold). In safety analyses, 27 (3·4%) of 800 patients in the tenecteplase group and 24 (3·2%) of 763 in the alteplase group had 24 h symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage and 122 (15·3%) of 796 and 117 (15·4%) of 763 died within 90 days of starting treatment INTERPRETATION: Intravenous tenecteplase (0·25 mg/kg) is a reasonable alternative to alteplase for all patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke who meet standard criteria for thrombolysis.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.

A new randomization procedure based on multiple covariates and applicable to parallel studies with simultaneous enrollment of all subjects prior to intervention

BACKGROUND

Parallel intervention studies involving volunteers usually require a procedure to allocate the subjects to study-arms. Statistical models to evaluate the different outcomes of the study-arms will include study-arm as a factor along with any covariate that might affect the results. To ensure that the effects of the covariates are confounded to the least possible extent with the effects of the arms, stratified randomization can be applied. However, there is at present no clear-cut procedure when there are multiple covariates.

METHODS

For parallel study designs with simultaneous enrollment of all subjects prior to intervention, we propose a D-optimal blocking procedure to allocate subjects with known values of the covariates to the study arms. We prove that the procedure minimizes the variances of the baseline differences between the arms corrected for the covariates. The procedure uses standard statistical software.

RESULTS

We demonstrate the potential of the method by an application to a human parallel nutritional intervention trial with three arms and 162 healthy volunteers. The covariates were gender, age, body mass index, an initial composite health score, and a categorical indicator called first-visit group, defining groups of volunteers who visit the clinical centre on the same day (17 groups). Volunteers were allocated equally to the study-arms by the D-optimal blocking procedure. The D-efficiency of the model connecting an outcome with the study-arms and correcting for the covariates equals 99.2%. We simulated 10,000 random allocations of subjects to arms either unstratified or stratified by first-visit group. Intervals covering the middle 95% of the D-efficiencies for these allocations were [82.0, 92.0] and [93.2, 98.4], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Allocation of volunteers to study-arms with a D-optimal blocking procedure with the values of the covariates as inputs substantially improves the efficiency of the statistical model that connects the response with the study arms and corrects for the covariates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register NL7054 ( NTR7259 ). Registered May 15, 2018.

Statistical properties of minimal sufficient balance and minimization as methods for controlling baseline covariate imbalance at the design stage of sequential clinical trials

When the number of baseline covariates whose imbalance needs to be controlled in a sequential randomized controlled trial is large, minimization is the most commonly used method for randomizing treatment assignments. The lack of allocation randomness associated with the minimization method has been the source of controversy, and the need to reduce even minor imbalances inherent in the minimization method has been challenged. The minimal sufficient balance (MSB) method is an alternative to the minimization method. It prevents serious imbalance from a large number of covariates while maintaining a high level of allocation randomness. In this study, the two treatment allocation methods are compared with regards to the effectiveness of balancing covariates across treatment arms and allocation randomness in equal allocation clinical trials. The MSB method proves to be equal or superior in both respects. In addition, type I error rate is preserved in analyses for both balancing methods, when using a binary endpoint.

Efficacy and safety of nerinetide for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke (ESCAPE-NA1): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nerinetide, an eicosapeptide that interferes with post-synaptic density protein 95, is a neuroprotectant that is effective in preclinical stroke models of ischaemia-reperfusion. In this trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of nerinetide in human ischaemia-reperfusion that occurs with rapid endovascular thrombectomy in patients who had an acute ischaemic stroke.

METHODS

For this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study done in 48 acute care hospitals in eight countries, we enrolled patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion within a 12 h treatment window. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with a disabling ischaemic stroke at the time of randomisation, had been functioning independently in the community before the stroke, had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) greater than 4, and vascular imaging showing moderate-to-good collateral filling, as determined by multiphase CT angiography. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2·6 mg/kg, up to a maximum dose of 270 mg, on the basis of estimated or actual weight (if known) or saline placebo by use of a real-time, dynamic, internet-based, stratified randomised minimisation procedure. Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and declared endovascular device choice. All trial personnel and patients were masked to sequence and treatment allocation. All patients underwent endovascular thrombectomy and received alteplase in usual care when indicated. The primary outcome was a favourable functional outcome 90 days after randomisation, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2. Secondary outcomes were measures of neurological disability, functional independence in activities of daily living, excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1), and mortality. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and adjusted for age, sex, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, ASPECTS, occlusion location, site, alteplase use, and declared first device. The safety population included all patients who received any amount of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02930018.

FINDINGS

Between March 1, 2017, and Aug 12, 2019, 1105 patients were randomly assigned to receive nerinetide (n=549) or placebo (n=556). 337 (61·4%) of 549 patients with nerinetide and 329 (59·2%) of 556 with placebo achieved an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days (adjusted risk ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·96-1·14; p=0·35). Secondary outcomes were similar between groups. We observed evidence of treatment effect modification resulting in inhibition of treatment effect in patients receiving alteplase. Serious adverse events occurred equally between groups.

INTERPRETATION

Nerinetide did not improve the proportion of patients achieving good clinical outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy compared with patients receiving placebo.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Alberta Innovates, and NoNO.

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE III): a randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded endpoint phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Acute stroke due to supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Open craniotomy haematoma evacuation has not been found to have any benefit in large randomised trials. We assessed whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis (MISTIE), with the aim of decreasing clot size to 15 mL or less, would improve functional outcome in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage.

METHODS

MISTIE III was an open-label, blinded endpoint, phase 3 trial done at 78 hospitals in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Asia. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with spontaneous, non-traumatic, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage of 30 mL or more. We used a computer-generated number sequence with a block size of four or six to centrally randomise patients to image-guided MISTIE treatment (1·0 mg alteplase every 8 h for up to nine doses) or standard medical care. Primary outcome was good functional outcome, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 365 days, adjusted for group differences in prespecified baseline covariates (stability intracerebral haemorrhage size, age, Glasgow Coma Scale, stability intraventricular haemorrhage size, and clot location). Analysis of the primary efficacy outcome was done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all eligible, randomly assigned patients who were exposed to treatment. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01827046.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 30, 2013, and Aug 15, 2017, 506 patients were randomly allocated: 255 (50%) to the MISTIE group and 251 (50%) to standard medical care. 499 patients (n=250 in the MISTIE group; n=249 in the standard medical care group) received treatment and were included in the mITT analysis set. The mITT primary adjusted efficacy analysis estimated that 45% of patients in the MISTIE group and 41% patients in the standard medical care group had achieved an mRS score of 0-3 at 365 days (adjusted risk difference 4% [95% CI -4 to 12]; p=0·33). Sensitivity analyses of 365-day mRS using generalised ordered logistic regression models adjusted for baseline variables showed that the estimated odds ratios comparing MISTIE with standard medical care for mRS scores higher than 5 versus 5 or less, higher than 4 versus 4 or less, higher than 3 versus 3 or less, and higher than 2 versus 2 or less were 0·60 (p=0·03), 0·84 (p=0·42), 0·87 (p=0·49), and 0·82 (p=0·44), respectively. At 7 days, two (1%) of 255 patients in the MISTIE group and ten (4%) of 251 patients in the standard medical care group had died (p=0·02) and at 30 days, 24 (9%) patients in the MISTIE group and 37 (15%) patients in the standard medical care group had died (p=0·07). The number of patients with symptomatic bleeding and brain bacterial infections was similar between the MISTIE and standard medical care groups (six [2%] of 255 patients vs three [1%] of 251 patients; p=0·33 for symptomatic bleeding; two [1%] of 255 patients vs 0 [0%] of 251 patients; p=0·16 for brain bacterial infections). At 30 days, 76 (30%) of 255 patients in the MISTIE group and 84 (33%) of 251 patients in the standard medical care group had one or more serious adverse event, and the difference in number of serious adverse events between the groups was statistically significant (p=0·012).

INTERPRETATION

For moderate to large intracerebral haemorrhage, MISTIE did not improve the proportion of patients who achieved a good response 365 days after intracerebral haemorrhage. The procedure was safely adopted by our sample of surgeons.

FUNDING

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Genentech.