← Clinical Trial Results
Stroke Phase 3 Double-Blind NCT01525290

WAKE-UP: Complete Statistical Analysis of MRI-based Thrombolysis in Wake-up Stroke

An independent statistical review of the randomized phase 3 WAKE-UP trial evaluating MRI-based thrombolysis with alteplase compared with placebo in patients with wake-up stroke.

ClinicalTrials.gov registry analysis · Completed study
Scope of this record

This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record.

1. Trial at a Glance

WAKE-UP was a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, parallel-design trial evaluating MRI-based thrombolysis in patients with wake-up stroke.

501
Enrollment
2
Arms
Alteplase and placebo
3
Phase
90 day
Primary time frame
FeatureWAKE-UP
NCT IDNCT01525290
TitleEfficacy and Safety of MRI-based Thrombolysis in Wake-up Stroke
ConditionStroke
AllocationRandomized
Design modelParallel
MaskingDouble
Primary purposeTreatment
Lead sponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf

2. Clinical Question

Population

Patients with stroke enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of MRI-based thrombolysis.

Intervention

Alteplase.

Comparator

Placebo.

Primary question

Does MRI-based thrombolysis with alteplase affect favourable outcome and safety outcomes at 90 days after stroke?

3. Trial Design

Randomization

Participants were randomly assigned.

Blinding

The trial used double masking.

Structure

A parallel-group design with two arms.

Enrollment

501 participants.

4. Endpoints

EndpointTime frameDescription
Efficacy90 day after strokeFavourable outcome (Modified Rankin Scale 0-1)
Safety90 day after strokeMortality; Death or dependency (Modified Rankin Scale 4-6)

5. Planned Analysis

The ClinicalTrials.gov record identifies efficacy and safety endpoints but does not report posted statistical analyses or endpoint results.

The efficacy endpoint is a binary functional outcome based on the Modified Rankin Scale. A typical analysis for this type of endpoint compares the proportion of participants achieving a favourable outcome between randomized groups using an appropriate hypothesis test or regression model, with an effect estimate and confidence interval describing the magnitude and uncertainty of the difference.

The safety endpoint includes mortality and death or dependency outcomes. These outcomes are generally summarized by treatment group and compared using methods appropriate for binary clinical event data.

Results status. No formal statistical analyses were posted to ClinicalTrials.gov for the listed endpoints.

6. Statistical Methodology

Randomized comparison

Randomization creates the framework for comparing treatment groups because assignment, rather than clinical characteristics, determines the intervention received. Statistical comparisons are interpreted relative to the randomized groups.

Binary endpoint analysis

The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as favourable outcome on the Modified Rankin Scale. For binary outcomes, the analysis focuses on the difference between groups in the probability of achieving the prespecified outcome.

Conceptual framework
Effect estimate = outcome frequency in alteplase group − outcome frequency in placebo group

The confidence interval describes uncertainty around the estimated treatment difference.

Safety analysis

Safety outcomes require separate interpretation from efficacy because a treatment effect on functional outcome and a treatment effect on adverse clinical outcomes answer different questions.

7. Statistical Methods Explained

Why is randomization important?

Randomization helps balance known and unknown prognostic factors between treatment groups, supporting an unbiased comparison of outcomes.

Why analyze a Modified Rankin Scale outcome?

The Modified Rankin Scale measures disability and functional outcome after stroke. Defining a favourable outcome as Modified Rankin Scale 0-1 creates a clinically interpretable binary endpoint.

What does a confidence interval show?

A confidence interval describes statistical uncertainty around an estimated treatment effect. It does not describe the outcomes experienced by every individual patient.

Why are efficacy and safety analyzed separately?

Efficacy evaluates whether a treatment affects the intended clinical outcome, while safety evaluates important adverse outcomes. A single summary statistic cannot replace evaluation of both domains.

8. Limitations

9. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

WAKE-UP illustrates several important principles in clinical trial statistics:

ConceptHow it appears in WAKE-UP
RandomizationRandomized comparison of alteplase and placebo
BlindingDouble-masked design
Binary efficacy endpointFavourable outcome defined by Modified Rankin Scale 0-1
Safety evaluationMortality and death or dependency outcomes
Clinical interpretationFunctional benefit and safety require separate assessment

10. Sources