Citations

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

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.

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.

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.

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.