Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998 Jan-Feb;8(1):59-72. doi: 10.1159/000015817.
Although a considerable body of scientific data is now available on neuroprotection in acute ischaemic stroke, this field is not yet established in clinical practice. At its third meeting, the European Ad Hoc Consensus Group considered the potential for neuroprotection in acute stroke and the practical problems attendant on the existence of a very limited therapeutic window before irreversible brain damage occurs, and came to the following conclusions. NEUROPROTECTANTS IN CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT: Convincing clinical evidence for an efficacious neuroprotective treatment in acute stroke is still required. Caution should be exercised in interpreting and extrapolating experimental results to stroke patients, who are a very heterogeneous group. The limitations of the time windows and the outcome measures chosen in trials of acute stroke therapy have an important influence on the results. The overall distribution of functional outcomes provides more statistical information than the proportion above a threshold outcome value. Neurological outcome should also be assessed. Neuroprotectants should not be tested clinically in phase II or phase III trials in a time window that exceeds those determined in experimental studies. The harmful effects of a drug in humans may override its neuroprotective potential determined in animals. Agents that act at several different levels in the ischaemic cascade may be more effective than those with a single mechanism of action. CURRENT IN-HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE STROKE: The four major physiological variables that must be monitored and managed are blood pressure, arterial blood gas levels, body temperature, and glycaemia. The effects of controlling these physiological variables have not been studied in prospective trials, though they may all contribute to the outcome of acute ischaemic stroke and affect the duration of the therapeutic window. Optimal physiological parameters are inherently neuroprotective. Trials of new agents for the treatment of acute stroke should aim to maintain these physiological variables as close to normal as possible, and certainly within strictly defined limits. THE PLACE OF NEUROPROTECTANTS IN ACUTE STROKE MANAGEMENT: Stroke patients are a very heterogeneous group with respect to stroke mechanisms and severity, general condition, age and co-morbidities. At the present time, the only firm guideline than can be proposed for patient selection is the need for early admission to enable neuroprotectant and/or thrombolytic treatment to be started as soon as possible within the therapeutic window. The severity of potential side-effects will largely determine who should assess a patient with suspected stroke and initiate treatment. There is little information on which to base the duration of neuroprotectant therapy, and more experimental data are needed. Even if prehospital treatment proves to be feasible, it should not replace comprehensive stroke management in a specialist hospital unit. Clinical trials of neuroprotectants should only be performed in stroke units. The combined approach of restoring blood flow and providing neuroprotection may be the most productive in human stroke, but current clinical trial design will have to change in order to test combination therapy. Important side-effects are those that interfere with any possible benefit or increase mortality. PHARMACO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF NEUROPROTECTANTS: The early increase in hospital cost associated with neuroprotectant therapy may be balanced by the shorter length of hospital stay and lesser degree of disability of the surviving patients. The overall direct financial cost is highly dependent on the number of patients eligible for neuroprotectant therapy, which is itself dependent on the length of the therapeutic window and the severity of potential side-effects. A treatment that achieves a good functional outcome is the most cost-effective approach.
尽管目前已有大量关于急性缺血性中风神经保护的科学数据,但该领域在临床实践中尚未确立。欧洲特设共识小组在第三次会议上审议了急性中风神经保护的潜力以及在不可逆转的脑损伤发生之前存在非常有限的治疗窗所带来的实际问题,并得出以下结论。
急性中风有效神经保护治疗仍需令人信服的临床证据。将实验结果解读并外推至中风患者时应谨慎,中风患者是一个非常异质的群体。急性中风治疗试验中所选时间窗和结局指标的局限性对结果有重要影响。功能结局的总体分布比高于阈值结局值的比例提供更多统计信息。还应评估神经学结局。神经保护剂不应在超过实验研究确定的时间窗内进行II期或III期临床试验。药物对人类的有害影响可能会超过其在动物身上确定的神经保护潜力。在缺血级联反应中作用于多个不同水平的药物可能比具有单一作用机制的药物更有效。
必须监测和管理的四个主要生理变量是血压、动脉血气水平、体温和血糖。尽管这些生理变量的控制效果可能都对急性缺血性中风的结局有贡献并影响治疗窗的持续时间,但尚未在前瞻性试验中进行研究。最佳生理参数本身具有神经保护作用。治疗急性中风新药的试验应旨在将这些生理变量维持在尽可能接近正常的水平,当然要在严格定义的范围内。
中风患者在中风机制和严重程度、一般状况、年龄和合并症方面是一个非常异质的群体。目前,对于患者选择唯一能提出的可靠指导原则是需要尽早入院,以便在治疗窗内尽快开始神经保护剂和/或溶栓治疗。潜在副作用的严重程度将在很大程度上决定应由谁来评估疑似中风患者并启动治疗。关于神经保护剂治疗持续时间的依据信息很少,需要更多实验数据。即使院前治疗被证明可行,它也不应取代专科医院单位的全面中风管理。神经保护剂的临床试验应仅在中风单元进行。恢复血流和提供神经保护的联合方法在人类中风中可能最有成效,但当前的临床试验设计必须改变以测试联合治疗。重要的副作用是那些干扰任何可能益处或增加死亡率的副作用。
与神经保护剂治疗相关的医院成本早期增加可能会被存活患者住院时间缩短和残疾程度降低所平衡。总体直接财务成本高度依赖于符合神经保护剂治疗条件的患者数量,而这本身又依赖于治疗窗的长度和潜在副作用的严重程度。实现良好功能结局的治疗是最具成本效益的方法。