Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of nerinetide in patients with acute ischaemic stroke enrolled in the early window: a post-hoc meta-analysis of individual patient data from three randomised trials

M. Tymianski, M. Hill, Mayank Goyal, Jim Christenson, B. Menon, R. Swartz, Corey Adams, K. Heard et al.

Lancet Neurology, 2025

690 participants · 30 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In three neuroprotection trials of nerinetide for acute ischaemic stroke, inconclusive results have been reported with respect to the prespecified primary outcome. However, none of the trials faithfully replicated the inclusion criteria of the animal studies that provided the rationale for the clinical trials-ie, treatment within 3 h of stroke onset and selected for reperfusion without previous thrombolysis. We aimed to investigate whether a clinical benefit of nerinetide might be seen in the subgroup of patients enrolled in these three clinical trials who met the criteria used in the animal studies.

METHODS

In this post-hoc individual patient data meta-analysis, we pooled data from the ESCAPE-NA1, ESCAPE-NEXT, and FRONTIER trials, which were done at 135 stroke centres in 13 countries (Canada, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA). We included all participants who were enrolled within 3 h of acute ischaemic stroke onset, treated with study drug (nerinetide or placebo; randomised 1:1), and selected for reperfusion with thrombolysis, endovascular thrombectomy, or both. The primary endpoint was the number of responders at day 90, which was defined as people with a favourable outcome as per the primary endpoint prespecified in their respective trial. The primary endpoint was analysed by logistic regression, adjusted for age, stroke severity, and trial.

FINDINGS

Between March 26,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 690 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free