Morrison, Leslie

Background: Cerebral cavernous malformation is a genetic neurovascular disorder causing aberrant angiogenesis and lesion development within capillary beds. Lesions exhibit impaired endothelial barrier function, causing blood-brain barrier leakage and hemorrhage. Quantitative MRI biomarkers (dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)) have been shown to correlate with CCM disease progression as measures of barrier leakage and hemorrhagic iron deposition, and there is interest in utilizing these biomarkers as endpoints in clinical trials. However, their consistencies across multiple platforms and institutions has not yet been rigorously verified. Materials and Methods: Instruments used were a 3T Philips Ingenia at University of Chicago and a 3T Siemens Prisma at Northwestern University. QSM was assessed by five balloons filled with varying concentrations of MultiHance, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8, surrounded by an agarose gel. Permeability was assessed by the injection of a bolus of MultiHance through a coiled hose inside a water-filled shell, and the consistency of the peak-to-peak ratio of the curves at the input and output was measured. Each biomarker was assessed by accuracy (to expected values, Pearson correlation), precision (between repeated measurements, paired t-test), and reproducibility (between instruments, paired t-test). Results: QSM measured with an accuracy of r 2 = 0.997 on the Philips Achieva and r 2 = 0.999 on the Siemens Prisma. Each scanner had adequate precision between measurements, showing no significant difference by a paired t-test (p = 0.66 Achieva, p = 0.45 Prisma), and the reproducibility between scanners also showed no significant difference (p = 0.89). The peak-to-peak ratio on DCEQP scans was accurate (r 2 = 0.998), precise between measurements (p = 0.54), and repeatable between instruments (p = 0.49). Conclusion: Quantitative imaging biomarkers DCEQP and QSM are accurate, consistent across multiple measurements, and between platforms and will be useful for future clinical trials in CCM.

Abstract BACKGROUND More than a million Americans harbor a cerebral cavernous angioma (CA), and those who suffer a prior symptomatic hemorrhage have an exceptionally high rebleeding risk. Preclinical studies show that atorvastatin blunts CA lesion development and hemorrhage through inhibiting RhoA kinase (ROCK), suggesting it may confer a therapeutic benefit. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether atorvastatin produces a difference compared to placebo in lesional iron deposition as assessed by quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) on magnetic resonance imaging in CAs that have demonstrated a symptomatic hemorrhage in the prior year. Secondary aims shall assess effects on vascular permeability, ROCK activity in peripheral leukocytes, signal effects on clinical outcomes, adverse events, and prespecified subgroups. METHODS The phase I/IIa placebo-controlled, double-blinded, single-site clinical trial aims to enroll 80 subjects randomized 1-1 to atorvastatin (starting dose 80 mg PO daily) or placebo. Dosing shall continue for 24-mo or until reaching a safety endpoint. EXPECTED OUTCOMES The trial is powered to detect an absolute difference of 20% in the mean percent change in lesional QSM per year (2-tailed, power 0.9, alpha 0.05). A decrease in QSM change would be a signal of potential benefit, and an increase would signal a safety concern with the drug. DISCUSSION With firm mechanistic rationale, rigorous preclinical discoveries, and biomarker validations, the trial shall explore a proof of concept effect of a widely used repurposed drug in stabilizing CAs after a symptomatic hemorrhage. This will be the first clinical trial of a drug aimed at altering rebleeding in CA.

Abstract BACKGROUND Brain cavernous angiomas with symptomatic hemorrhage (CASH) are uncommon but exact a heavy burden of neurological disability from recurrent bleeding, for which there is no proven therapy. Candidate drugs to stabilize the CASH lesion and prevent rebleeding will ultimately require testing of safety and efficacy in multisite clinical trials. Much progress has been made in understanding the epidemiology of CASH, and novel biomarkers have been linked to the biological mechanisms and clinical activity in lesions. Yet, the ability to enroll and risk-stratify CASH subjects has never been assessed prospectively at multiple sites. Biomarkers and other outcomes have not been evaluated for their sensitivity and reliability, nor have they been harmonized across sites. OBJECTIVE To address knowledge gaps and establish a research network as infrastructure for future clinical trials, through the Trial Readiness grant mechanism, funded by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke/National Institutes of Health. METHODS This project includes an observational cohort study to assess (1) the feasibility of screening, enrollment rates, baseline disease categorization, and follow-up of CASH using common data elements at multiple sites, (2) the reliability of imaging biomarkers including quantitative susceptibility mapping and permeability measures that have been shown to correlate with lesion activity, and (3) the rates of recurrent hemorrhage and change in functional status and biomarker measurements during prospective follow-up. EXPECTED OUTCOMES We propose a harmonized multisite assessment of enrollment rates of CASH, baseline features relevant to stratification in clinical trials, and follow-up assessments of functional outcomes in relation to clinical bleeds. We introduce novel biomarkers of vascular leak and hemorrhage, with firm mechanistic foundations, which have been linked to clinical disease activity. We shall test their reliability and validity at multiple sites, and assess their changes over time, with and without clinical rebleeds, hence their fitness as outcome instruments in clinical trials. DISCUSSION The timing cannot be more opportune, with therapeutic targets identified, exceptional collaboration among researchers and the patient community, along with several drugs ready to benefit from development of a path to clinical testing using this network in the next 5 years.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Despite many publications about cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs), controversy remains regarding diagnostic and management strategies. OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for CCM management. METHODS: The Angioma Alliance (www.angioma.org), the patient support group in the United States advocating on behalf of patients and research in CCM, convened a multidisciplinary writing group comprising expert CCM clinicians to help summarize the existing literature related to the clinical care of CCM, focusing on 5 topics: (1) epidemiology and natural history, (2) genetic testing and counseling, (3) diagnostic criteria and radiology standards, (4) neurosurgical considerations, and (5) neurological considerations. The group reviewed literature, rated evidence, developed recommendations, and established consensus, controversies, and knowledge gaps according to a prespecified protocol. RESULTS: Of 1270 publications published between January 1, 1983 and September 31, 2014, we selected 98 based on methodological criteria, and identified 38 additional recent or relevant publications. Topic authors used these publications to summarize current knowledge and arrive at 23 consensus management recommendations, which we rated by class (size of effect) and level (estimate of certainty) according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association criteria. No recommendation was level A (because of the absence of randomized controlled trials), 11 (48%) were level B, and 12 (52%) were level C. Recommendations were class I in 8 (35%), class II in 10 (43%), and class III in 5 (22%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports recommendations for the management of CCM, but their generally low levels and classes mandate further research to better inform clinical practice and update these recommendations. The complete recommendations document, including the criteria for selecting reference citations, a more detailed justification of the respective recommendations, and a summary of controversies and knowledge gaps, was similarly peer reviewed and is available on line www.angioma.org/CCMGuidelines.