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
Transatlantic Differences in Management of Carotid Stenosis: BRIDGing the Gap in StrokE Management (BRIDGE) Project
Background and Purpose: Management of carotid stenosis remains controversial despite several trials evaluating carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). We compared attitudes in the management of carotid stenosis between selected experts within Europe and North America. Methods: A 3-phase Delphi survey was e-mailed to select stroke experts from Europe (n = 390) and North America (n = 289). Those completing the initial survey were shown all responses after each survey round. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Results: For phases 1, 2, and 3, response rates were 32%, 62%, and 73%, respectively. Overall, 100 (15%) of 679 participated in all 3 phases, 19% Europeans versus 9% North Americans ( P = .0007). The European group reached consensus in 6 of 15 statements; The North American group reached consensus in 4 of 15. Ninety percentage of Europeans versus 70% of North Americans ( P = .017) stated CEA is superior to CAS for symptomatic carotid stenosis. This difference was not significant in the final model (adjusted odds ratio: 3.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.95-14.5]). Sixty-nine percentage of North Americans agreed there is a stronger indication for CAS over CEA in patients younger than 65 years for symptomatic carotid stenosis, whereas 55% of Europeans ( P = .023) disagreed. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, when asked how likely they would recommend CAS, 62% North Americans said “sometimes” versus 60% of Europeans said “never” ( P = .06). Conclusion: The majority of North American and European respondents did not consider the 2 procedures equivalent and seemed to indicate that CEA was preferred for the management of carotid stenosis. These findings need to be further explored to help establish evidence-based guidelines.
Effects of alteplase for acute stroke according to criteria defining the European Union and United States marketing authorizations: Individual-patient-data meta-analysis of randomized trials
Background The recommended maximum age and time window for intravenous alteplase treatment of acute ischemic stroke differs between the Europe Union and United States. Aims We compared the effects of alteplase in cohorts defined by the current Europe Union or United States marketing approval labels, and by hypothetical revisions of the labels that would remove the Europe Union upper age limit or extend the United States treatment time window to 4.5 h. Methods We assessed outcomes in an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials of intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) versus control for acute ischemic stroke. Outcomes included: excellent outcome (modified Rankin score 0–1) at 3–6 months, the distribution of modified Rankin score, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90-day mortality. Results Alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0–1 among 2449/6136 (40%) patients who met the current European Union label and 3491 (57%) patients who met the age-revised label (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.21−1.68 and 1.43, 1.23−1.65, respectively), but not in those outside the age-revised label (1.06, 0.90−1.26). By 90 days, there was no increased mortality in the current and age-revised cohorts (hazard ratios 0.98, 95% CI 0.76−1.25 and 1.01, 0.86–1.19, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the age-revised label (1.19, 0.99–1.42). Similarly, alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0-1 among 1174/6136 (19%) patients who met the current US approval and 3326 (54%) who met a 4.5-h revised approval (odds ratio 1.55, 1.19−2.01 and 1.37, 1.17−1.59, respectively), but not for those outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.14, 0.97−1.34). By 90 days, no increased mortality remained for the current and 4.5-h revised label cohorts (hazard ratios 0.99, 0.77−1.26 and 1.02, 0.87–1.20, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.17, 0.98–1.41). Conclusions An age-revised European Union label or 4.5-h-revised United States label would each increase the number of patients deriving net benefit from alteplase by 90 days after acute ischemic stroke, without excess mortality.
Rethinking Training and Distribution of Vascular Neurology Interventionists in the Era of Thrombectomy
Background and Purpose CGS 19755 is a competitive N -methyl- d -aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that limits neuronal damage in animal stroke models. The objectives of this multicenter (7 centers), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose phase IIa study were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of CGS 19755 and obtain pharmacokinetic and preliminary data on its efficacious dose range in patients treated within 12 hours of hemispheric ischemic stroke. Methods At each dose level, 6 patients were randomized to one or two intravenous bolus doses of CGS 19755, and 2 patients were randomized to placebo. An unblinded safety and monitoring committee evaluated results at each dose before ascending to the next level. All patients at the first level (1 mg/kg) received two doses separated by 12 hours. The first 2 patients at 2 mg/kg received two doses, but adverse experiences occurred in both; subsequent patient groups received single doses of 2.0, 1.75, or 1.5 mg/kg. Results Adverse experiences (agitation, hallucinations, confusion, paranoia, and delirium) occurred in all 6 patients treated with 2 mg/kg, and in 3 of 5 at 1.75 mg/kg. Similar but milder adverse experiences were noted in 4 of 7 patients at 1.5 mg/kg and 1 of 6 patients at 1.0 mg/kg. Adverse experiences began between 20 minutes and 22 hours (mean, 8 hours) after treatment and lasted 2 to 60 hours (mean, 24 hours). Mortality was 1 of 8 in patients receiving placebo and 3 of 24 in treated patients. In treated survivors, median and mean percent improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to terminal visit (mean, 86 days) was comparable at all doses, and 95% of treated patients had Barthel Index scores of ≥70 at the terminal visit. Conclusions We conclude that a single intravenous dose of 1.5 mg/kg CGS 19755 is safe and tolerable in patients with acute ischemic stroke. An efficacy trial is indicated.
Does the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Favor Left Hemisphere Strokes?
Background and Purpose —The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a valid, reproducible scale that measures neurological deficit. Of 42 possible points, 7 points are directly related to measurement of language compared with only 2 points related to neglect. Methods —We examined the placebo arm of the NINDS t-PA stroke trial to test the hypothesis that the total volume of cerebral infarction in patients with right hemisphere strokes would be greater than the volume of cerebral infarction in patients with left hemisphere strokes who have similar NIHSS scores. The volume of stroke was determined by computerized image analysis of CT films and CT images stored on computer tape and optical disks. Cube-root transformation of lesion volume was performed for each CT. Transformed lesion volume was analyzed in a logistic regression model to predict volume of stroke by NIHSS score for each hemisphere. Spearman rank correlation was used to determine the relation between the NIHSS score and lesion volume. Results —The volume for right hemisphere stroke was statistically greater than the volume for left hemisphere strokes, adjusting for the baseline NIHSS ( P <0.001). For each 5-point category of the NIHSS score <20, the median volume of right hemisphere strokes was approximately double the median volume of left hemisphere strokes. For example, for patients with a left hemisphere stroke and a 24-hour NIHSS score of 16 to 20, the median volume of cerebral infarction was 48 mL (interquartile range 14 to 111 mL) as compared with 133 mL (interquartile range 81 to 208 mL) for patients with a right hemisphere stroke ( P <0.001). The median volume of a right hemisphere stroke was roughly equal to the median volume of a left hemisphere stroke in the next highest 5-point category of the NIHSS. The Spearman rank correlation between the 24-hour NIHSS score and 3-month lesion volume was 0.72 for patients with left hemisphere stroke and 0.71 for patients with right hemisphere stroke. Conclusions —For a given NIHSS score, the median volume of right hemisphere strokes is consistently larger than the median volume of left hemisphere strokes. The clinical implications of our finding need further exploration.
Background and Purpose— Recombinant-activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is an investigational treatment for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We have evaluated the drug’s treatment effect based on time to treatment. Methods— ICH patients treated up to 4 hours from symptom onset were divided based on time to treatment: ≤3 hours (3H) and 3 to 4 hours (4H). Head CT was done at baseline and 24 hours. Outcome measures included: ICH growth at 24 hours, mortality, favorable outcome and discharge disposition. A cohort of nontreated matched ICH patients was used to asses the clinical efficacy. Results— Forty-six patients were treated with rFVIIa: 24 in the 3H group (range 70 to 180 minutes), 22 in the 4H group (range 181 to 300). One hundred and forty-eight patients formed the control group. Mean baseline ICH volume was 8.8 mL for 3H and 10.1 mL for 4H. Mean 24-hour volume was 9.3 mL for 3H (absolute increase 1.05 mL, relative increase 11.9%) and 11.5 mL for 4H (absolute increase 1.1 mL, relative increase 10.9%); P =0.47 is for the difference in relative increase. Mortality was 12.5% for 3H group, 13.6% for 4H, and 13.1% for the control. In the 3H group, 58.3% were discharged with a poor outcome, compared with 54.5% in 4H and 54.1% in the control. Thrombotic adverse events occurred in 11.1% of patients treated with rFVIIa. Conclusions— In our off-label with rFVIIa, we did not find evidence of a treatment effect based on time to treatment. Other criteria should be sought to identify patients who might benefit clinically from rFVIIa.