Randomized trial shows improved functional outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with sovateltide, indicating its potential benefits.
Background and aims Sovateltide, an endothelin-B receptor agonist, has shown favorable functional outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and is approved in India as a first-in-class therapy for AIS. A phase 4 study (NCT05955326) is currently recruiting patients in India (target N=160) to further assess safety and effectiveness. This report presents the results of a prespecified interim analysis conducted after enrollment of 80 patients. Methods Eligible participants were adults aged 18 to 78 years with radiologically confirmed AIS and an NIHSS score of 6 or higher, presenting within 24 hours of symptom onset. Exclusion criteria included intracranial hemorrhage and receipt of endovascular therapy. Participants were randomized to receive either normal saline or sovateltide (0.3 μg/kg), administered intravenously in three doses at 3±1 hour intervals on days 1, 3, and 6. Analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population, with missing endpoints imputed using MICE. Results Patient age and body weight, sex distribution, NIHSS score (p=0.5216), comorbidities, and the median time from symptom onset to first dose (16–18 hours) were comparable between groups. At 90 days, the sovateltide group (92.3%) of patients with mRS 0-2, showed greater improvement (OR 8.50, 95% CI 2.44-29.01; p=0.0005) than the control group (58.5%). Sovateltide group had more patients (84.62%) with improvement of ≥2 mRS points from baseline (Odds 5.24, 95% CI 1.85-15.50; p=0.0014) than control (51.22%). Ordinal shift analysis of mRS also favored sovateltide by 33% compared to control. Conclusions Sovateltide was associated with significantly improved 90-day functional outcomes, consistent with results from previous AIS efficacy trials. Conflict of interest
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gulati et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: