Deans' stroke musings: The Hazard of Negative (Not Neutral) Trials on Treatment of Acute Stroke

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

The Hazard of Negative (Not Neutral) Trials on Treatment of Acute Stroke

And since we have fucking failures of stroke associations with NO database of all stroke research, you have to hope like hell your doctors and stroke hospital are competent enough to keep up with and implement stroke research. I think I've proven thousands of times they are not competent. So you may as well go back to the blood letting practice.

“In the treatment of apoplexy, the most important point is the employment of bleeding; the judicious use of which powerful remedy the cure greatly depends.” (Bright 1831, p 334)

The Hazard of Negative (Not Neutral) Trials on Treatment of Acute Stroke

Abstract

Importance While there are a limited number of beneficial treatments for acute stroke (eg, stroke units, reperfusion, aspirin, hemicraniectomy), there are more negative (as opposed to neutral) interventions spanning multiple different mechanisms of action. To reduce the risk of future negative studies, it is vital to understand why previous interventions appeared to cause harm.
Observations The limited number of beneficial treatments for acute ischemic stroke are far outnumbered by negative (not neutral) interventions that worsened outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), including those with putative neuroprotectant, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, free radical–scavenging, hemorrhagic, or vasoactive activity. Other agents reduced thrombolytic efficiency or exhibited neuropsychiatric or cardiac toxicity. In intracerebral hemorrhage, platelet transfusion was hazardous. Although reperfusion treatments should be given as soon as possible, very early intervention with other strategies may instead be hazardous, as has been seen with physical therapy and vasodepressors.
Conclusions and Relevance The lessons learned from negative stroke RCTs are vital for designing future studies. Multicenter preclinical studies are necessary, and animals that die must be included in analyses. Randomized clinical trials must assess multiple neurological, vascular, cardiac, and general safety effects, whether these are on target or off target. All preclinical trials and RCTs must be published in full. Learning from the past will help to reduce the number of negative stroke RCTs in the future.

Full Text