Savitz, Sean I.

Objective To establish a framework for validating candidate biomarkers of cerebral small vessel diseases (SVD) associated with cognitive impairment and characterize individuals enrolled by the MarkVCID2 consortium under this framework. Methods Participants age 60 to 90 years were enrolled across 17 MarkVCID2 sites. Recruitment was targeted to enrich in cognitive symptoms (mild dementia, mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive decline), defined risk factors (diabetes mellitus, advanced hypertension), and Black/African American, White, and Hispanic/Latino subgroups. Enrolled participants underwent baseline visits that included cognitive testing, multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biofluid collection. Provisional risk for SVD‐related cognitive decline was estimated primarily by baseline cognitive symptoms plus SVD risk factors. Adjudicated risk status was estimated by cognitive symptoms plus presence of moderate‐to‐severe white matter hyperintensities, microbleeds, or lacunes on baseline MRI. Results MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non‐Hispanic Black. Among enrollees, 44.8% were provisionally designated high‐risk. After baseline MRI, 48.5% were categorized as adjudicated high‐risk status, with substantial recategorization both from low‐ to high‐risk (primarily because of MRI lesions without SVD risk factors) and high‐ to low‐risk (primarily suspected cognitive impairment at screening not confirmed by baseline testing). Interpretation MarkVCID2 baseline data indicate successful enrollment of diverse individuals enriched in factors associated with SVD‐related cognitive decline. Changes over 3 years of longitudinal follow‐up will be analyzed to validate the candidate biomarkers for 2 projected contexts of use: subject selection (identifying likelihood of future SVD progression) and study outcome (efficiently measuring SVD progression). ANN NEUROL 2026;99:449–458

Background and Objectives: Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma agonists, such as pioglitazone (PIO) enhanced hematoma resolution and improved functional recovery in our animal model of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We conducted a translational Phase II randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of PIO in patients with spontaneous ICH and to explore the rate of hematoma resolution and clinical outcome. Methods: Patients with spontaneous ICH within 24 hours of symptom onset were randomly allocated 1:1 to placebo or PIO. Patients received escalating doses of PIO daily for three days, followed by a 30mg maintenance dose for the duration of treatment. Duration of treatment was when 75% of the ICH had resolved as determined by serial MRI or 10 weeks of treatment, whichever occurred first. The primary safety outcome was mortality at Day 14. Secondary measures of safety include any mortality, symptomatic cerebral edema, congestive heart failure, edema, hypoglycemia, anemia, and hepatotoxicity. Secondary measures of efficacy include hematoma resolution and clinical outcome. The MTD was determined using the Continual Reassessment Method. Results: From March 2009 to April 2013, 84 patients (42 PIO, 42 control) were enrolled into 11 dose tiers, with a planned range from 0.1-2.0 mg/kg/d. Table 1 demonstrates preliminary baseline and clinical characteristics of patients by treatment group. Overall, 2/84 patients died within 2 weeks after ICH; however mortality rate never exceeded prespecified criteria. The study will be complete in October 2013 and the treatment team remains blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes by treatment group and the MTD of PIO will be reported. Conclusions: We have completed the treatment phase of the SHRINC Trial. Long term follow-up is on-going. These results will provide the foundation for an efficacy trial evaluating PIO as a potential treatment for patients with spontaneous ICH.

Background: Optimum management of carotid stenosis, both symptomatic (sx) and asymptomatic (asx), remains controversial despite clinical trials evaluating Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) and Carotid Stenting (CAS). Objective: We compared attitudes in management of carotid stenosis between experts in Europe (EU), and North America (NA). Methods: From April 2011 to July 2012, a 3-round, email-Delphi survey was sent to members of the European Stroke Organisation (n=390) and to a list of NA stroke neurologists developed at the University of Texas at Houston Stroke Program (n=289). Those completing the survey were shown all responses broken down by EU/NA after each of the first 2 survey rounds. Continent specific consensus was defined a priori to be > 80% agreement. Results: 100 (15%, of which 73% EU) participated in all 3-Delphi rounds, 19% of all EU vs 9% NA (χ2=11.62, p=0.0007): 76% male; 69% treating between 1-8 new cases of carotid stenosis per month. In the final round, EU reached consensus in 7/11 statements (3 reached in phase-I), while NA did in 4/11 (1 reached in phase-I).Ninety-percent of EU vs 70% of NA (χ2=8.09, p=0.017) disagreed that CAS and CEA are equivalent treatments for sx carotid stenosis, and stated that CEA is superior. There remains a significant difference between EU and NA when considering ipsilateral stroke and death < 30 days as primary outcome (χ2=12.18, p=0.007). Sixty-nine-percent of NA agreed that there is a stronger indication for CAS over CEA in patients < 65 years for sx carotid stenosis whereas 55% of EU (χ2=11.39, p=0.023) disagreed with the statement. When asked how likely they would recommend CEA for an asx carotid stenosis, 81% of EU and 80% of NA said ‘sometimes’. When asked how likely they would recommend CAS for an asx carotid stenosis, 62% of NA said ‘sometimes’ vs 60% of EU said ‘never’(χ2=3.54, p=0.06). Conclusion: There are several clear differences in attitudes regarding the management of carotid stenosis between EU and NA: EU has a stronger attitude towards superiority of CEA while in NA there is more equipoise between the two treatments. Areas of lack of consensus may provide direction for future clinical trials.

AbstractCellular therapy is a promising investigational modality to enhance poststroke recovery. We conducted a single-arm, phase I clinical trial to determine the safety and feasibility of intravenous (IV) administration of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells (MNCs) after acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Patients with moderate severity of AIS underwent bone marrow harvest followed by IV reinfusion of MNCs within 24–72 hours of onset. A target dose of 10 million cells per kilogram was chosen based on preclinical data. Patients were followed up daily during hospitalization and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months for incidence of adverse events using laboratory, clinical (12 months), and radiological (24 months) parameters. The trial was powered to detect severe adverse events (SAEs) with incidences of at least 10% and planned to enroll 30 patients. Primary outcomes were study-related SAEs and the proportion of patients successfully completing study intervention. A propensity score-based matched control group was used for the estimation of effect size (ES) for day-90 modified Rankin score (mRS). There were no study-related SAEs and, based on a futility analysis, enrolment was stopped after 25 patients. All patients successfully completed study intervention and most received the target dose. Secondary analysis estimated the ES to be a reduction of 1 point (95% confidence interval: 0.33–1.67) in median day-90 mRS for treated patients as compared with the matched control group. Bone marrow harvest and infusion of MNCs is safe and feasible in patients with AIS. The estimated ES is helpful in designing future randomized controlled trials. Stem Cells 2019;37:1481–1491