Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Chronic Stroke

Background: Cell transplantation is a ‘hype and hope’ in the current scenario. It is in the early stage of development with promises to restore function in chronic diseases. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation in stroke patients has shown significant improvement by reducing clinical and functional deficits. They are feasible and multipotent and have homing characteristics. This study evaluates the safety, feasibility and efficacy of autologous MSC transplantation in patients with chronic stroke using clinical scores and functional imaging (blood oxygen level-dependent and diffusion tensor imaging techniques). Methods: Twelve chronic stroke patients were recruited; inclusion criteria were stroke lasting 3 months to 1 year, motor strength of hand muscles of at least 2, and NIHSS of 4–15, and patients had to be conscious and able to comprehend. Fugl Meyer (FM), modified Barthel index (mBI), MRC, Ashworth tone grade scale scores and functional imaging scans were assessed at baseline, and after 8 and 24 weeks. Bone marrow was aspirated under aseptic conditions and expansion of MSC took 3 weeks with animal serum-free media (Stem Pro SFM). Six patients were administered a mean of 50–60 × 106 cells i.v. followed by 8 weeks of physiotherapy. Six patients served as controls. This was a non-randomized experimental controlled trial. Results: Clinical and radiological scanning was normal for the stem cell group patients. There was no mortality or cell-related adverse reaction. The laboratory tests on days 1, 3, 5 and 7 were also normal in the MSC group till the last follow-up. The FM and mBI showed a modest increase in the stem cell group compared to controls. There was an increased number of cluster activation of Brodmann areas BA 4 and BA 6 after stem cell infusion compared to controls, indicating neural plasticity. Conclusion: MSC therapy aiming to restore function in stroke is safe and feasible. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy

Efficacy of stem cell in improvement of left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction - MI3 Trial

Background and objectives: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is characterized by irreparable and irreversible loss of cardiac myocytes. Despite major advances in the management of AMI, a large number of patients are left with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which is a major determinant of short and long term morbidity and mortality. A review of 33 randomized control trials has shown varying improvement in left ventricular (LV) function in patients receiving stem cells compared to standard medical therapy. Most trials had small sample size and were underpowered. This phase III prospective, open labelled, randomized multicenteric trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy in improving the LVEF over a period of six months, after injecting a predefined dose of 5-10 Χ 10 [8] autologous mononuclear cells (MNC) by intra-coronary route, in patients, one to three weeks post ST elevation AMI, in addition to the standard medical therapy. Methods: In this phase III prospective, multicentric trial 250 patients with AMI were included and randomized into stem cell therapy (SCT) and non SCT groups. All patients were followed up for six months. Patients with AMI having left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 20-50 per cent were included and were randomized to receive intracoronary stem cell infusion after successfully completing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Results: On intention-to-treat analysis the infusion of MNCs had no positive impact on LVEF improvement of ≥ 5 per cent. The improvement in LVEF after six months was 5.17 ± 8.90 per cent in non SCT group and 4.82 ± 10.32 per cent in SCT group. The adverse effects were comparable in both the groups. On post hoc analysis it was noted that the cell dose had a positive impact when infused in the dose of ≥ 5 X 10 [8] (n=71). This benefit was noted upto three weeks post AMI. There were 38 trial deviates in the SCT group which was a limitation of the study. Interpretation and conclusions:Infusion of stem cells was found to have no benefit in ST elevation AMI. However, the procedure was safe. A possible benefit was seen when the predefined cell dose was administered which was noted upto three weeks post AMI, but this was not significant and needs confirmation by larger trials

Outcomes of participants with diabetes in the ISCHEMIA trials

BACKGROUND: Among patients with diabetes mellitus (diabetes) and chronic coronary disease (CCD), it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA Trials (ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA CKD) randomized CCD patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, HbA1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with vs. without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease [CAD] severity or left ventricular function). RESULTS: Of 5,900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years interquartile range (IQR) [57–70], 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 ml/min/1.73(2) IQR [64–95]. Among the 2,553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% IQR [7–8%], and 30% were insulin treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (HR 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31–1.70, P<0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI: 0.48, 0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI: 0.61, 0.71) for patients with vs. without diabetes – a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI: 4%, 20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI: 0.42, 0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI: 0.42, 0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with vs. without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (CAD severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk for death or MI, CCD patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy