Cargando…

Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?

Background: Recruitment of patients in early subacute rehabilitation trials (<30 days post-stroke) presents unique challenges compared to conventional stroke trials recruiting individuals >6 months post-stroke. Preclinical studies suggest treatments be initiated sooner after stroke, thus requi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geed, Shashwati, Feit, Preethy, Edwards, Dorothy F., Dromerick, Alexander W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168611
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.674237
_version_ 1783710680748130304
author Geed, Shashwati
Feit, Preethy
Edwards, Dorothy F.
Dromerick, Alexander W.
author_facet Geed, Shashwati
Feit, Preethy
Edwards, Dorothy F.
Dromerick, Alexander W.
author_sort Geed, Shashwati
collection PubMed
description Background: Recruitment of patients in early subacute rehabilitation trials (<30 days post-stroke) presents unique challenges compared to conventional stroke trials recruiting individuals >6 months post-stroke. Preclinical studies suggest treatments be initiated sooner after stroke, thus requiring stroke rehabilitation trials be conducted within days post-stroke. How do specific inclusion and exclusion criteria affect trial recruitment rates for early stroke rehabilitation trials? Objectives: Provide estimates of trial recruitment based on screening and enrollment data from a phase II early stroke rehabilitation trial. Methods: CPASS, a phase II intervention trial screened ischemic stroke patients in acute care (18-months, N = 395) and inpatient rehabilitation (22-months, N = 673). Patients were stratified by upper extremity (UE) impairment into mild (NIHSS motor arm = 0, 1); moderate (NIHSS = 2, 3); severe (NIHSS = 4) and numbers of patients disqualified due to CPASS exclusion criteria determined. We also examined if a motor-specific evaluation (Action Research Arm Test, ARAT) increases the pool of eligible patients disqualified by the NIHSS motor arm item. Results: CPASS recruitment in acute care (5.3%) and inpatient rehabilitation (5%) was comparable to prior trials. In acute care, a short stay (7–17-days), prior stroke (13.5% in moderately; 13.2% in severely impaired) disqualified the majority. In inpatient rehabilitation, the majority (40.8%) were excluded for “too mild” impairment. The next majority were disqualified for reaching inpatient rehabilitation “too late” to participate in an early stroke trial (15% in moderately; 24% in severely impaired). Mean ARAT in the “too mild” showed significant impairment and potential to benefit from participation in select UE rehabilitation trials. Conclusions: Screening of ischemic stroke patients while they are still in acute care is crucial to successful recruitment for early stroke rehabilitation trials. A significant proportion of eligible patients are lost to “short length of stay” in acute care, and arrive to inpatient rehabilitation “too late” for an early rehabilitation trial. Additional screening of mildly impaired patients using a motor function specific scale will benefit the trial recruitment and generalizability. Trial Registration Number: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02235974.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8217867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82178672021-06-23 Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits? Geed, Shashwati Feit, Preethy Edwards, Dorothy F. Dromerick, Alexander W. Front Neurol Neurology Background: Recruitment of patients in early subacute rehabilitation trials (<30 days post-stroke) presents unique challenges compared to conventional stroke trials recruiting individuals >6 months post-stroke. Preclinical studies suggest treatments be initiated sooner after stroke, thus requiring stroke rehabilitation trials be conducted within days post-stroke. How do specific inclusion and exclusion criteria affect trial recruitment rates for early stroke rehabilitation trials? Objectives: Provide estimates of trial recruitment based on screening and enrollment data from a phase II early stroke rehabilitation trial. Methods: CPASS, a phase II intervention trial screened ischemic stroke patients in acute care (18-months, N = 395) and inpatient rehabilitation (22-months, N = 673). Patients were stratified by upper extremity (UE) impairment into mild (NIHSS motor arm = 0, 1); moderate (NIHSS = 2, 3); severe (NIHSS = 4) and numbers of patients disqualified due to CPASS exclusion criteria determined. We also examined if a motor-specific evaluation (Action Research Arm Test, ARAT) increases the pool of eligible patients disqualified by the NIHSS motor arm item. Results: CPASS recruitment in acute care (5.3%) and inpatient rehabilitation (5%) was comparable to prior trials. In acute care, a short stay (7–17-days), prior stroke (13.5% in moderately; 13.2% in severely impaired) disqualified the majority. In inpatient rehabilitation, the majority (40.8%) were excluded for “too mild” impairment. The next majority were disqualified for reaching inpatient rehabilitation “too late” to participate in an early stroke trial (15% in moderately; 24% in severely impaired). Mean ARAT in the “too mild” showed significant impairment and potential to benefit from participation in select UE rehabilitation trials. Conclusions: Screening of ischemic stroke patients while they are still in acute care is crucial to successful recruitment for early stroke rehabilitation trials. A significant proportion of eligible patients are lost to “short length of stay” in acute care, and arrive to inpatient rehabilitation “too late” for an early rehabilitation trial. Additional screening of mildly impaired patients using a motor function specific scale will benefit the trial recruitment and generalizability. Trial Registration Number: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02235974. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8217867/ /pubmed/34168611 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.674237 Text en Copyright © 2021 Geed, Feit, Edwards and Dromerick. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neurology
Geed, Shashwati
Feit, Preethy
Edwards, Dorothy F.
Dromerick, Alexander W.
Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?
title Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?
title_full Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?
title_fullStr Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?
title_full_unstemmed Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?
title_short Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?
title_sort why are stroke rehabilitation trial recruitment rates in single digits?
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168611
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.674237
work_keys_str_mv AT geedshashwati whyarestrokerehabilitationtrialrecruitmentratesinsingledigits
AT feitpreethy whyarestrokerehabilitationtrialrecruitmentratesinsingledigits
AT edwardsdorothyf whyarestrokerehabilitationtrialrecruitmentratesinsingledigits
AT dromerickalexanderw whyarestrokerehabilitationtrialrecruitmentratesinsingledigits