BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) is in development as an oral treatment for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, which is commonly treated with parenteral agents (interferon or glatiramer acetate).

Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Objective To measure the global impact of COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of IV thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with 2 control 4-month periods. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases. Results There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] −11.7 to −11.3, p < 0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95% CI −13.8 to −12.7, p < 0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95% CI −13.7 to −10.3, p = 0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95% CI 9.2–9.8, p < 0.0001) was noted over the 2 later (May, June) vs the 2 earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID-19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.

IPX066 is an extended release carbidopa/levodopa formulation designed to rapidly attain and maintain therapeutic plasma concentrations for a prolonged duration, allowing dosing intervals of approximately 6 h. The objective was to assess the efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life of IPX066 in the treatment of levodopa-naive Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 30-week study of 381 levodopa-naïve patients assigned to placebo or IPX066 containing 145, 245 or 390 mg of levodopa administered three times daily (TID). The primary efficacy measure was change from Baseline in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) activities of daily living (Part II) + motor scores (Part III), at 30 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included UPDRS total and subscores, patient and clinician global impressions (PGI-I, CGI-I), and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). All IPX066 dosages were superior to placebo throughout the study and at 30 weeks (P < 0.0001). The mean improvement in UPDRS Parts II + III at 30 weeks compared to baseline was 11.7, 12.9, and 14.9 points for the three dosages and 0.6 points for placebo (P < 0.0001, all dosages). PDQ-39 total scores improved with IPX066 (P ≤ 0.034, all dosages). The most commonly reported adverse events with IPX066 included nausea, dizziness, and headache. No unexpected drug-related serious adverse events were reported. IPX066 provided significant clinical benefits at the three dosages tested compared to placebo and was well tolerated in levodopa-naive PD patients. Of the dosages tested, IPX066 145 mg TID appeared to provide the best overall balance between efficacy and safety.