No biting!
There are still a few hold-outs on the 0 to 3 hour window, but most folks would agree that battle is lost – the best we can hope for is further clarifying the patients with the greatest likelihood of clinically significant benefit vs. those with the greatest level of potential harms.
But, greater than 3 hours is still a battlefield. This article in the January Annals uses the gloriously unbalanced ECASS III data for a cost-effectiveness analysis which, unsurprisingly, concludes in favor of tPA treatment. The problem is, of course, the assumption that ECASS III is infallible – a highly suspect position, considering the baseline differences between groups in ECASS III. Then, accounting for the the 1200 patients in IST-3 enrolled in the 3 to 4.5 window who did poorly with tPA, I’m guessing an updated meta-analysis wouldn’t look quite as favorable. But, I will give these authors a bit of a break, as this article was accepted for publication before IST-3 results were available.
Finally, in lieu of my usual rant, I’ll just copy and paste the disclosures portion of the article:
“This project was funded through a contract with Genentech, Inc. Drs. Boudreau and Veenstra and Mr. Guzauskas served as a consultant for Genentech, Inc. Ms. Villa is employed by Genentech, Inc. Dr. Fagan is a consultant for Genentech, Inc.”
“A Model of Cost-effectiveness of Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Patient Subgroups 3 to 4.5 Hours After Onset of Acute Ischemic Stroke”