Introduction: The Challenge of Long-Term Post-Stroke Care
The acute management of stroke has seen revolutionary advances over the last decade, particularly with the widespread implementation of thrombectomy and thrombolysis. However, the long-term management of survivors, specifically the prevention of functional decline after the initial rehabilitation phase, remains a significant clinical challenge. While the Stroke Action Plan for Europe (SAP-E) recommends coordinated support and long-term follow-up, the empirical evidence supporting specific multimodal interventions has been historically sparse. The LAST-long trial was designed to address this evidence gap by evaluating whether a coordinator-led, individualized intervention could mitigate dependency and functional loss in a population vulnerable to decline.
Background and Clinical Rationale
Functional decline after stroke is not always a linear process. Many patients who achieve initial independence experience a gradual loss of function due to secondary complications, physical inactivity, poorly controlled vascular risk factors, or psychological issues. The rationale for a multimodal intervention is rooted in the complexity of stroke recovery, which requires simultaneous management of physical, cognitive, and social domains. The LAST-long trial hypothesized that a community-based stroke coordinator, acting as a bridge between the patient and the healthcare system, could identify risks early and implement targeted action points to preserve functional status.
Study Design and Methodology
The LAST-long trial was a single-blinded, randomized controlled multi-centre trial conducted across four major Norwegian hospitals. The study enrolled 301 participants approximately three months post-stroke. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either an intervention group (n = 152) or a control group (n = 149).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria targeted adults (age ≥18 years) with a life expectancy of at least 12 months. Crucially, participants had to have a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of less than 5 and be identified as “vulnerable to functional decline.” This vulnerability was determined by specific clinical measures assessing gait, balance, and cognitive status. The baseline mRS of the cohort was 1.6 (SD 0.9), indicating a population with relatively mild disability.
The Multimodal Intervention
The intervention group received 18 months of monthly follow-up by a community-based stroke coordinator. These coordinators utilized a study-specific checklist to assess multiple domains, including physical activity, blood pressure, medication adherence, nutrition, and mood. Based on the assessment, individual goals and action points were established. In contrast, the control group received standard care, which in the Norwegian context typically includes follow-up by primary care physicians and standard rehabilitation services as needed.
Primary and Secondary Endpoints
The primary endpoint was the mRS score at the 18-month follow-up, which measures the degree of disability or dependence in daily activities. Secondary endpoints were comprehensive, covering activities of daily living (Barthel Index), cognitive function (MoCA), physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery), patient-reported outcomes, and physiological markers such as blood pressure and Body Mass Index (BMI). Assessments were performed at 6, 12, and 18 months by blinded evaluators to maintain trial integrity.
Key Findings: No Superiority Over Standard Care
The trial results, published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, demonstrated no significant difference between the intervention and control groups regarding the primary outcome.
Primary Outcome Analysis
At the 18-month mark, the estimated difference in mRS between the groups was 0.03 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.22), with a p-value of 0.79. This indicates that the coordinator-led intervention did not provide an incremental benefit over standard care in preventing functional decline. The mean mRS remained stable in both groups, reflecting the “mild” nature of the stroke population studied.
Secondary Outcomes and Physiological Data
The analysis of secondary outcomes mirrored the primary results. No statistically significant differences were observed in cognitive function, physical performance, or activities of daily living. Furthermore, physiological parameters such as blood pressure control and BMI did not show superior improvement in the intervention group, despite the monthly monitoring and goal-setting activities of the coordinators.
Safety and Adverse Events
Safety data showed that the intervention was well-tolerated. The number of serious adverse events (SAEs), including death, recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, and falls, was similar between the groups. Specifically, 32 participants (21.1%) in the intervention group and 33 (22.1%) in the control group experienced an SAE, suggesting no increased risk or protective effect related to the intervention intensity.
Expert Commentary: Interpreting the Neutral Results
The neutral findings of the LAST-long trial raise important questions for stroke specialists and health policy makers. Several factors may contribute to the lack of observed benefit.
The “Ceiling Effect” in Mild Stroke
The study population had a mean baseline mRS of 1.6, representing individuals with very mild disability. In such a high-functioning group, the potential for measurable functional decline over 18 months may be limited, or standard care may already be sufficient to maintain their status. The intervention might have shown different results in a more severely affected or socioeconomically disadvantaged population.
The Quality of Standard Care
The trial was conducted in Norway, a country with a highly developed primary healthcare system. It is possible that the “standard care” received by the control group was of such high quality that the additional coordinator-led intervention provided diminishing returns. This phenomenon is often seen in clinical trials conducted in robust healthcare environments where the control arm performs better than expected.
Duration and Hard Endpoints
As the authors suggest in their interpretation, 18 months may be too short a period to capture differences in “hard” outcomes such as recurrent stroke or mortality. Functional decline in mild stroke is often a slow, insidious process that might require years of follow-up to manifest as a significant difference in mRS scores.
Clinical Implications and Conclusion
The LAST-long trial provides high-quality evidence that a generalized, monthly coordinator-led intervention may not be the most efficient use of resources for all survivors of mild stroke. While the Stroke Action Plan for Europe emphasizes coordinated support, this trial suggests that the “one-size-fits-all” approach to coordination may need refinement.
Future Research Directions
Future studies should perhaps focus on identifying higher-risk subgroups who might benefit more from intensive coordination. Additionally, digital health interventions or more targeted physiological monitoring (e.g., continuous glucose or blood pressure monitoring) might offer more specific benefits than a checklist-based coordination model. In conclusion, while the LAST-long trial did not meet its primary endpoint, it serves as a critical benchmark for stroke rehabilitation research. It underscores the necessity of tailoring post-stroke interventions to specific patient profiles and healthcare contexts rather than implementing broad coordination models without targeted clinical objectives.
Funding and Trial Registration
This research was supported by the Research Council of Norway, the Joint Research Committee between St. Olavs Hospital and the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at NTNU, and Foundation Dam. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03859063).
References
Askim T, Langlo SR, Bergh E, et al. A multimodal individualized long-term intervention to prevent functional decline after stroke (LAST-long): a single blinded randomised controlled trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2025 Nov 13;61:101531. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101531. PMID: 41323876.