Scott Janis

Methodology of the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial

Rationale The Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) I and II pilot trials demonstrated that the combined intravenous (i.v.) and intraarterial (i.a.) approach to recanalization may be more effective than standard i.v. rt-PA (Activase®) alone for moderate-to-large National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS ≥ 10) strokes, and with a similar safety profile. Aims The primary objective of this NIH-funded, Phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial is to determine whether a combined i.v./i.a. approach to recanalization is superior to standard i.v. rt-PA alone when initiated within 3 h of acute ischemic stroke onset. The IMS III trial will develop and maintain a network of interventional centers to test the safety, feasibility, and potential efficacy of new FDA-approved catheter devices as part of a combined i.v./i.a. approach to recanalization as the IMS III study progresses. A secondary objective of the IMS III trial is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the combined i.v./i.a. approach as compared with standard i.v. rt-PA. Trial enrollment began in July of 2006. Design A projected 900 subjects with moderate-to-large (NIHSS ≥ 10) ischemic strokes between ages 18 and 80 will be enrolled over the next 5 years at 40-plus centers in the United States and Canada. Patients must have i.v. treatment initiated within 3 h of stroke onset in both arms. Subjects will be randomized in a 2: 1 ratio with more subjects enrolled in the combined i.v./i.a. group. The i.v. rt-PA alone group will receive the standard full dose [0·9 mg/kg, 90 mg maximum (10% as bolus)] of rt-PA intravenously over an hour. The combined i.v./i.a. group will receive a lower dose of i.v. rt-PA (~0·6 mg/kg, 60 mg maximum) over 40 min, followed by immediate angiography. If a treatable thrombus is not demonstrated, no i.a. therapy will be administered. If an appropriate thrombus is identified, treatment will continue with either the Concentric Merci® thrombus-removal device, infusion of rt-PA and delivery of low-intensity ultrasound at the site of the occlusion via the EKOS® Micro-Infusion Catheter, or infusion of rt-PA via a standard microcatheter. If i.a. rt-Pa therapy is the chosen strategy, a maximum of 22 mg of i.a. rt-PA may be given. The choice of i.a. strategy will be made by the treating neurointerventionalist. The i.a. treatment must begin within 5 h and be completed within 7 h of stroke onset. Study outcomes The primary outcome measure is a favorable clinical outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale Score of 0–2 at 3 months. The primary safety measure is mortality at 3 months and symptomatic ICH within the 24 h of randomization.

Design of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis Trial

BACKGROUND Patients with recent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke caused by 70% to 99% stenosis of a major intracranial artery are at high risk of recurrent stroke on usual medical management, suggesting the need for alternative therapies for this disease. METHODS The Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial is an ongoing, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm trial that will determine whether intracranial angioplasty and stenting adds benefit to aggressive medical management alone for preventing the primary endpoint (any stroke or death within 30 days after enrollment or after any revascularization procedure of the qualifying lesion during follow-up, or stroke in the territory of the symptomatic intracranial artery beyond 30 days) during a mean follow-up of 2 years in patients with recent TIA or stroke caused by 70% to 99% stenosis of a major intracranial artery. Aggressive medical management in both arms consists of aspirin 325 mg per day, clopidogrel 75 mg per day for 90 days after enrollment, intensive risk factor management primarily targeting systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg (<130 mm Hg in diabetics) and low density cholesterol <70 mg/dL, and a lifestyle modification program. The sample size required to detect a 35% reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint from angioplasty and stenting based on the log-rank test with an alpha of 0.05, 80% power, and adjusting for a 2% loss to follow-up and 5% crossover from the medical to the stenting arm is 382 patients per group. RESULTS Enrollment began in November 2008 and 451 patients have been enrolled as of March 31, 2011. CONCLUSIONS This is the first randomized stroke prevention trial to compare angioplasty and stenting with medical therapy in patients with intracranial arterial stenosis and to incorporate intensive management of multiple risk factors and a lifestyle modification program in the study design. Hopefully, the results of the trial will lead to more effective therapy for this high-risk disease.

Standardizing the Structure of Stroke Clinical and Epidemiologic Research Data The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Stroke Common Data Element (CDE) Project

The mission of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is “to reduce the burden of neurologic disease.” Supporting translational, clinical, and population research in stroke is fundamental to this mission, as stroke is the single greatest nervous system cause of death and disability, both in the United States and worldwide.(1, 2) (3) Accordingly, the NINDS supports a diverse array of translational, clinical trial, epidemiologic, and additional patient-oriented research in cerebrovasular disease, which have had a substantial beneficial effect upon health policy, clinical care, and patient outcomes.(4) However, the fullest potential benefit of these research endeavors has not been realized due to the absence of uniform, widely-accepted formats to characterize demographic, disease, care process, and outcome variables. Data elements are often characterized in varying manners in different studies, hampering cross-study comparisons, recognition of population differences, data-sharing, and pooled analyses. To harmonize data collected across diverse translational, clinical, and population studies, NINDS began the Common Data Element (CDE) Project in 2006.(5) The project aims to standardize naming, definitions, data structure, and response options for all variables commonly employed in NINDS-funded patient and population research. The CDE project complements study-level guidelines from the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network.(6) However, where EQUATOR guidelines focus on the reporting of study level results, the CDE Project focuses on the collection and reporting of individual variable level results, providing guidance for data collection, and facilitating data sharing, at a more granular, patient level. The overall CDE Project has four primary goals: 1) disseminate standards for the collection of data from participants enrolled in studies of neurological diseases; 2) create easily accessible data-collection tools for investigators that are ready to use “off the shelf”; 3) encourage focused and simplified data collection to reduce burden on investigators and practice-based clinicians to increase clinical research participation; and 4) improve study quality and reduce cost of data entry, cleaning and analysis by providing uniform data descriptions and tools across NINDS-funded clinical studies of treatment for neurological diseases.(5, 7) The anticipated benefits of the CDE Project are multiple, and include: 1) rapid and efficient study start-up by allowing investigators access to appropriate data elements, definitions, and case report form templates; 2) improved patient safety by facilitating development of common report templates that can be submitted to oversight committees such as Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs); 3) enriched data sharing and data aggregation by employing standard definitions and common forms; and 4) wide adoption of common outcome measures (e.g., functional, cognitive) that may be relevant across the neurological diseases.(5, 7) The CDE Project first developed a set of General CDEs commonly collected in all neuroscience clinical studies, including demographic information, medical history data, medication use, and data needed for safety reporting.(8) Next, development of disease-specific CDEs was undertaken. This paper describes the process and outcome for the development of Stroke CDEs.Background and Purpose— The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke initiated development of stroke-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs) as part of a project to develop data standards for funded clinical research in all fields of neuroscience. Standardizing data elements in translational, clinical, and population research in cerebrovascular disease could decrease study start-up time, facilitate data sharing, and promote well-informed clinical practice guidelines. Methods— A working group of diverse experts in cerebrovascular clinical trials, epidemiology, and biostatistics met regularly to develop a set of stroke CDEs, selecting among, refining, and adding to existing, field-tested data elements from national registries and funded trials and studies. Candidate elements were revised on the basis of comments from leading national and international neurovascular research organizations and the public. Results— The first iteration of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) stroke-specific CDEs comprises 980 data elements spanning 9 content areas: (1) biospecimens and biomarkers; (2) hospital course and acute therapies; (3) imaging; (4) laboratory tests and vital signs; (5) long-term therapies; (6) medical history and prior health status; (7) outcomes and end points; (8) stroke presentation; and (9) stroke types and subtypes. A CDE website provides uniform names and structures for each element, a data dictionary, and template case report forms, using the CDEs. Conclusions— Stroke-specific CDEs are now available as standardized, scientifically vetted, variable structures to facilitate data collection and data sharing in cerebrovascular patient-oriented research. The CDEs are an evolving resource that will be iteratively improved based on investigator use, new technologies, and emerging concepts and research findings.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage (CLEAR III)

Background In adults, intraventricular thrombolytic therapy with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) facilitates resolution of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), reduces intracranial pressure, decreases duration of cerebrospinal fluid diversion, and may ameliorate direct neural injury. We hypothesize that patients with small parenchymal haematoma volumes (<30 cc) and relatively large IVH causing acute obstructive hydrocephalus would have improved clinical outcomes when given injections of low-dose rtPA to accelerate lysis and evacuation of IVH compared with placebo. Methods The Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage III trial is an investigator-initiated, phase III, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the use of external ventricular drainage (EVD) combined with intraventricular injection of rtPA to EVD plus intraventricular injection of normal saline (placebo) for the treatment of IVH. Patients with known symptom onset within 24 h of the computed tomography scan confirmed IVH and third or fourth ventricle obstruction, with or without supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage volume <30 cc, who require EVD are screened with a computed tomography scan at least six hours after EVD placement and, if necessary, at consecutive 12-h intervals until stabilization of any intracranial bleeding has been established. Patients who meet clinical and imaging criteria (no ongoing coagulopathy and no suspicion of aneurysm, arteriovenous malformation, or any other vascular anomaly) will be randomized to either intraventricular rtPA or placebo. Results The primary outcome measure is dichotomized modified Rankin Scale 0–3 vs. 4–6 at 180 days. Clinical secondary outcomes include additional modified Rankin Scale dichotomizations at 180 days (0–4 vs. 5–6), ordinal modified Rankin Scale (0–6), mortality and safety events at 30 days, mortality at 180 days, functional status measures, type and intensity of intensive care unit management, rate and extent of ventricular blood clot removal, and quality of life measures.

Thrombolytic removal of intraventricular haemorrhage in treatment of severe stroke: results of the randomised, multicentre, multiregion, placebo-controlled CLEAR III trial

BACKGROUND Intraventricular haemorrhage is a subtype of intracerebral haemorrhage, with 50% mortality and serious disability for survivors. We aimed to test whether attempting to remove intraventricular haemorrhage with alteplase versus saline irrigation improved functional outcome. METHODS In this randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multiregional trial (CLEAR III), participants with a routinely placed extraventricular drain, in the intensive care unit with stable, non-traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage volume less than 30 mL, intraventricular haemorrhage obstructing the 3rd or 4th ventricles, and no underlying pathology were adaptively randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based system to receive up to 12 doses, 8 h apart of 1 mg of alteplase or 0·9% saline via the extraventricular drain. The treating physician, clinical research staff, and participants were masked to treatment assignment. CT scans were obtained every 24 h throughout dosing. The primary efficacy outcome was good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) of 3 or less at 180 days per central adjudication by blinded evaluators. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00784134. FINDINGS Between Sept 18, 2009, and Jan 13, 2015, 500 patients were randomised: 249 to the alteplase group and 251 to the saline group. 180-day follow-up data were available for analysis from 246 of 249 participants in the alteplase group and 245 of 251 participants in the placebo group. The primary efficacy outcome was similar in each group (good outcome in alteplase group 48% vs saline 45%; risk ratio [RR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·88-1·28; p=0·554]). A difference of 3·5% (RR 1·08 [95% CI 0·90-1·29], p=0·420) was found after adjustment for intraventricular haemorrhage size and thalamic intracerebral haemorrhage. At 180 days, the treatment group had lower case fatality (46 [18%] vs saline 73 [29%], hazard ratio 0·60 [95% CI 0·41-0·86], p=0·006), but a greater proportion with mRS 5 (42 [17%] vs 21 [9%]; RR 1·99 [95% CI 1·22-3·26], p=0·007). Ventriculitis (17 [7%] alteplase vs 31 [12%] saline; RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·31-0·97], p=0·048) and serious adverse events (114 [46%] alteplase vs 151 [60%] saline; RR 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·90], p=0·002) were less frequent with alteplase treatment. Symptomatic bleeding (six [2%] in the alteplase group vs five [2%] in the saline group; RR 1·21 [95% CI 0·37-3·91], p=0·771) was similar. INTERPRETATION In patients with intraventricular haemorrhage and a routine extraventricular drain, irrigation with alteplase did not substantially improve functional outcomes at the mRS 3 cutoff compared with irrigation with saline. Protocol-based use of alteplase with extraventricular drain seems safe. Future investigation is needed to determine whether a greater frequency of complete intraventricular haemorrhage removal via alteplase produces gains in functional status. FUNDING National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial protocol: a randomized, blinded, efficacy trial of standard vs. intensive hyperglycemia management in acute stroke

Rationale Patients with acute ischemic stroke and hyperglycemia have worse outcomes than those without hyperglycemia. Intensive glucose control during acute stroke is feasible and can be accomplished safely but has not been fully assessed for efficacy. Aims The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort trial aims to determine the safety and efficacy of standard vs. intensive glucose control with insulin in hyperglycemic acute ischemic stroke patients. Design This is a randomized, blinded, multicenter, phase III trial of approximately 1400 hyperglycemic patients who receive either standard sliding scale subcutaneous insulin (blood glucose range 80–179 mg/dL, 4·44–9·93 mmol/L) or continuous intravenous insulin (target blood glucose 80–130 mg/dL, 4·44–7·21 mmol/L) for up to 72 h, starting within 12 h of stroke symptom onset. The acute treatment phase is single blind (for the patients), but the final outcome assessment is double blind. The study is powered to detect a 7% absolute difference in favorable outcome at 90 days. Study outcomes The primary outcome is a baseline severity adjusted 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, defined as 0, 0–1, or 0–2, if the baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score is 3–7, 8–14, or 15–22, respectively. The primary safety outcome is the rate of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL, <2·22 mmol/L). Discussion This trial will provide important novel information about preferred management of acute ischemic stroke patients with hyperglycemia. It will determine the potential benefits and risks of intensive glucose control during acute stroke.

Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus alteplase in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Craniotomy, according to the results from trials, does not improve functional outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage. Whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis for clot removal is safe and can achieve a good functional outcome is not known. We investigated the safety and efficacy of alteplase, a recombinant tissue plasminogen activator, in combination with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. METHODS MISTIE was an open-label, phase 2 trial that was done in 26 hospitals in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Germany. We used a computer-generated allocation sequence with a block size of four to centrally randomise patients aged 18-80 years with a non-traumatic (spontaneous) intracerebral haemorrhage of 20 mL or higher to standard medical care or image-guided MIS plus alteplase (0·3 mg or 1·0 mg every 8 h for up to nine doses) to remove clots using surgical aspiration followed by alteplase clot irrigation. Primary outcomes were all safety outcomes: 30 day mortality, 7 day procedure-related mortality, 72 h symptomatic bleeding, and 30 day brain infections. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00224770. FINDINGS Between Feb 2, 2006, and April 8, 2013, 96 patients were randomly allocated and completed follow-up: 54 (56%) in the MIS plus alteplase group and 42 (44%) in the standard medical care group. The primary outcomes did not differ between the standard medical care and MIS plus alteplase groups: 30 day mortality (four [9·5%, 95% CI 2·7-22.6] vs eight [14·8%, 6·6-27·1], p=0·542), 7 day mortality (zero [0%, 0-8·4] vs one [1·9%, 0·1-9·9], p=0·562), symptomatic bleeding (one [2·4%, 0·1-12·6] vs five [9·3%, 3·1-20·3], p=0·226), and brain bacterial infections (one [2·4%, 0·1-12·6] vs zero [0%, 0-6·6], p=0·438). Asymptomatic haemorrhages were more common in the MIS plus alteplase group than in the standard medical care group (12 [22·2%; 95% CI 12·0-35·6] vs three [7·1%; 1·5-19·5]; p=0·051). INTERPRETATION MIS plus alteplase seems to be safe in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage, but increased asymptomatic bleeding is a major cautionary finding. These results, if replicable, could lead to the addition of surgical management as a therapeutic strategy for intracerebral haemorrhage. FUNDING National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Genentech, and Codman.SUMMARY Background Craniotomy, when evaluated in trials, does not improve outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis is safe and can achieve a good functional outcome by removing clot is unknown. We investigated safety and efficacy of alteplase with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. Methods MISTIE was an international, randomized, open-label study and was done in 26 hospitals in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Germany. Patients (aged 18–80 years), with non-traumatic (spontaneous) ICH ≥20 mL were randomly allocated, centrally, to medical care or image-guided MIS plus rt-PA (0.3 mg or 1.0 mg every 8 hours for up to 9 doses) to remove clot using surgical aspiration followed with alteplase clot irrigation. The primary efficacy outcome was the adjusted dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–3 vs 4–6 assessed at day 180 after symptom onset. Analysis was by intention to treat. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00224770). Findings Between February 2, 2006 and April 8, 2013, 96 subjects were randomized and completed follow-up: 54 received treatment and 42 medical care. Primary safety outcomes: mortality, symptomatic bleeding, brain infections, as well as withdrawal of care, did not differ between groups. Asymptomatic hemorrhages were more common in the surgical group (3 (7%) vs. 12 (22%) p= 0.05) producing a difference of 15.1% (95% CI: 1.5% to 28.6%). The estimated absolute benefit, i.e., the unadjusted difference in observed proportions of all subjects with mRS 0–3 (33% vs 21%) at 180 days comparing MISPA vs. medical control, is 0.109 [95%CI: −0.088, 0.294; p=0.26], and is 0.162 [95%CI: 0.003, 0.323; p=0.05] after adjustment for potential imbalances in baseline severity between study arms (primary efficacy outcome). Interpretation MIS+rt-PA appears safe with an apparent advantage of better functional outcome at 180 days. Increased asymptomatic bleeding is a major cautionary finding. The MISTIE trial results, if replicable, could produce a meaningful functional benefit adding surgical management as a therapeutic strategy for ICH. Funding National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, Genentech, and Codman.

Translational Stroke Research: Vision and Opportunities

See related article, p 2341 Stroke risk and poststroke disability have steadily decreased in the United States over the past 2 decades because of improved prevention and access to reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke, such as tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator; alteplase) and endovascular thrombectomy. Despite the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis and thrombectomy, not all patients who receive the treatment improve to full, independent recovery, and most patients are ineligible for treatment. Additionally, there are no efficacious treatments to improve long-term outcomes for patients after the acute phase of ischemic stroke or to reduce brain injury induced by acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Therefore, development of new therapies for both acute and chronic stroke is sorely needed. Stroke occurs because of a variety of vascular pathologies and injury mechanisms, some of which are difficult to model in animals. With the exception of reperfusion therapy, preclinical research end points do not generally reflect clinical outcomes. Pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and target engagement in the human brain need to be further developed and optimized for stroke interventions so that drug level in brain tissue, time to initiation, and duration of treatment can be accurately measured in clinical trials. Many variables, such as heterogeneity of vascular pathologies, patient demographics, and a host of comorbid conditions, as well as the lack of validated biomarkers to stratify patient populations, limit the ability of typical stroke clinical trials to detect a treatment effect. To address these gaps, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke organized and sponsored the workshop Translational Stroke Research: Vision and Opportunities, which was held in Bethesda, Maryland, on November 1 to 2, 2016. The workshop gathered over 180 registered participants from academia, industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and other public and private funding agencies. …

NIH Roundtable on Emergency Trauma Research

STUDY OBJECTIVE The National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. The NIH Trauma Research Roundtable was convened on June 22 to 23, 2009. The objectives of the roundtable are to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency trauma care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of trauma research networks and collaboration between NIH and the emergency trauma care community. METHODS Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. During and after the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. RESULTS Emergency trauma care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype of patients on the time spectrum of acuity and severity after injury and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency trauma research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel experimental models of acute injury; the need to assess the effect of development and aging on the postinjury response; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcomes after injury. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. CONCLUSION The science of emergency trauma care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) development of an acute injury template for clinical research; (2) developing emergency trauma clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency trauma research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency care-specific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving acute trauma and emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues; and (8) training emergency care investigators with research training programs.

Rationale, Design, and Implementation of Aggressive Risk Factor Management in the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Prevention of Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) Trial

The value of comprehensive intensive atherosclerotic risk factor control in patients with coronary artery disease is well established. In 2007, the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial demonstrated that among patients with stable coronary disease, intensive management of vascular risk factors was as good as endovascular intervention plus intensive medical management for preventing cardiac ischemic events.1 Yet, despite the fact that atherosclerotic risk factor control in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack is recommended by guidelines,2 a multimodal approach to prevention has not previously been tested in patients with atherosclerotic stroke. Older atherosclerotic stroke prevention trials comparing carotid revascularization with medical therapy, such as North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET)3 and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS),4 were performed in an era before statins and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors became standard of care, and therefore risk factor control was not adequate by today’s standards. Even recent trials comparing carotid revascularization procedures5,6 had little emphasis on risk factor control in their design and therefore had little impact on blood pressure and cholesterol measures at 1 year.7,8 Among stroke prevention trials in patients with heterogeneous causes of stroke, several trials have studied the effects of specific risk factor medications9–11 or of intensive control of a particular risk factor, such as blood pressure,12 but no stroke prevention trials have used a mutimodal aggressive risk factor approach. Among patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, which may be the most common cause of stroke worldwide,13 risk factor control is also believed to be important for stroke prevention. The Warfarin Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial, in which patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis were managed with either warfarin or aspirin and usual risk factor management,14 showed that …