Controversies in Thrombolysis

Diabetes and the treatment of ischemic stroke

This white paper examines the current challenges for treating ischemic stroke in diabetic patients. The need for a greater understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the relationship between diabetes and the cerebral vascular responses to ischemia is discussed. The critical need to improve the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis is addressed, as is the need for a better characterization the off-target actions of tPA, the only currently approved thrombolytic for the treatment of ischemic stroke.

Cerebral ischemia-reperfusion causes a down regulation of HCN1 expression via enhancing the nuclear NRSF-HDAC4 gathering that contributes to neuron damage

Cerebral ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) can trigger neuronal death through several biologically plausible pathways, but its underlying neurobiological mechanisms remain unclear. In this study, we tested whether hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channel 1 (HCN1) is altered in I/R that contributes to neuron damage and further clarified the mechanisms underlying this process. Cerebral I/R injury was induced by middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) surgery followed by reperfusion in rats or simulated by oxygen-glucose deprivation/reoxygenation (OGD/R) in cultured cell. After reperfusion, the mRNA and protein levels of HCN1 were tested by RT-PCR and Western blot (WB). The histone deacetylases 4 (HDAC4) shuttling and the nuclear neuron-restrictive silencer factor (NRSF) expression were evaluated by WB and immunohistochemistry. Our data showed that I/R caused a strong decrease of HCN1 subunit in both hippocampus and cortex of rat. Additionally, the nuclear expression of HDAC4 and NRSF were significantly increased. In vitro OGD/R model, the gathering of HDAC4 and NRSF to nuclei was further confirmed. Valproic acid (VPA), a HDAC4 inhibitor, could reverse the decreased HCN1 and protect neuron damage from OGD/R injury. Collectively, these results demonstrated that I/R cause a decrease of HCN1 expression via enhancing nuclear HDAC4-NRSF gathering and might contribute to neuron damage.

Current Drug Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: Challenges and Opportunities

Patient-level health outcomes for acute ischemic stroke have significantly improved in the last decade primarily because of superior overall case management, availability of tailored drug interventions, and advances in endovascular procedures. Nevertheless, disease registries show a "quality gap" across social determinants of health and between in-hospital and community-onset strokes. Several factors, including financing and infrastructure constraints, limited expertise, and clinical uncertainty, still prevent adherence to evidence-based clinical guidelines and optimal care pathways. This paper critically appraises existing evidence on the use of drug therapies in acute ischemic stroke, in an attempt to resolve physician-related subjective barriers for effective acute management of the disease. We conclude that intravenous administration of rt-PA (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, alteplase) is an essential component of acute-phase pharmacologic treatment and a driver for the improvement of overall ischemic stroke health outcomes. The safety profile of alteplase and similar treatments are well within the patient benefit zone of eligible patients when compared to non-treatment alternatives. Monomodal neuroprotective drugs with single or pleiotropic mechanisms of action have failed to support long-term sustainable results. Drugs with complex mechanisms of action that promote neurorecovery, such as cerebrolysin, are valid options for adjunctive treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Recent years have shown clear improvements in the methodology and design of clinical trials, with an increase in overall internal and external validity. A better understanding of study limitations has not hindered, but enhanced their potential to contribute, together with sometimes superior data sources, to health decision making.

Intravenous thrombolysis and thrombectomy decisions in acute ischemic stroke: An interrater and intrarater agreement study

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess agreement on intravenous tissue-plasminogen activator (IV tPA) and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) management decisions in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Secondary objectives were to assess agreement on Diffusion-Weighted-Imaging-Alberta-Stroke-Program-EArly-CT-Score (DWI-ASPECTS), and clinicians' willingness to recruit patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing medical management with or without MT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies assessing agreement of IV tPA and MT were systematically reviewed. An electronic portfolio of 41 AIS patients was sent to randomly selected providers at French stroke centers. Raters were asked 4 questions for each case: (1) What is the DWI-ASPECTS? (2) Would you perform IV tPA? (3) Would you perform MT? (4) Would you include the patient in a RCT comparing standard medical therapy with or without MT? Twenty responders were randomly selected to study intrarater agreement. Agreement was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa statistics.

RESULTS

The review yielded two single center studies involving 2-5 raters, with various results. The electronic survey was answered by 86 physicians (60 vascular neurologists and 26 interventional neuroradiologists). The interrater agreement was moderate for IV tPA treatment decisions (κ=0.565 [0.420-0.680]), but only fair for MT (κ=0.383 [0.289-0.491]) and for combined treatment decisions (κ=0.399 [0.320-0.486]). The intrarater agreement was at least substantial for the majority of raters. The interrater agreement for DWI-ASPECTS was fair (κ=0.325 [0.276-0.387]). Physicians were willing to include a mean of 14±9 patients (33.1%±21.7%) in a RCT.

CONCLUSION

Disagreements regarding the use of IVtPA or MT in the management of AIS patients remain frequent. Further trials are needed to resolve the numerous areas of uncertainty.

Intravenous Magnesium Sulfate in Acute Stroke

Background and Purpose—

Acute stroke treatment is challenging, and stroke remains a major cause of death and disability. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of postacute stroke intravenous administration of the neuroprotectant magnesium sulfate (MgSO 4 ) on global outcome, functional outcome, and mortality 90 days poststroke (ischemic and nonischemic).

Methods—

We searched in Pubmed, Science Direct, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, up to November 11, 2017, and we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We synthesized results by using random-effects model, weighted mean differences, standardized mean differences, and odds ratios.

Results—

Seven randomized controlled trials (4347 patients) met our criteria. Compared with placebo, treatment did not improve functional outcome defined as Barthel Index >60 (odds ratio =1.05; 95% CI, 0.92–1.19) and >95 (odds ratio =0.95; 95% CI, 0.76–1.20), 90 days poststroke. It also did not improve global outcome measured with modified Rankin Scale (standardized mean difference =−0.01; 95% CI, −0.12 to 0.10), 90 days poststroke. In an additional subgroup meta-analysis that exclusively included ischemic stroke patients, intravenous MgSO 4 resulted in lower modified Rankin Scale score (improved global outcome; weighted mean difference =−0.96; 95% CI, −1.34 to −0.58; I 2 =0%], 90 days poststroke. Finally, mortality stayed unaltered (odds ratio =1.10; 95% CI, 0.94–1.29).

Conclusions—

The findings of our meta-analysis showed that intravenous MgSO 4 generally did not improve global/functional outcomes and mortality at 90 days after stroke (combined ischemic stroke and nonischemic stroke). The finding of favorable neurological outcome, selectively in ischemic stroke patients, should be viewed with extreme caution given the limited number of patients included in this subgroup meta-analysis.

Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail

Background

The pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a productivity crisis and rates of translation from bench to bedside are dismal. Patients are being let down by the current system of drug discovery; of the several 1000 diseases that affect humans, only a minority have any approved treatments and many of these cause adverse reactions in humans. A predominant reason for the poor rate of translation from bench to bedside is generally held to be the failure of preclinical animal models to predict clinical efficacy and safety. Attempts to explain this failure have focused on problems of internal validity in preclinical animal studies (e.g. poor study design, lack of measures to control bias). However there has been less discussion of another key factor that influences translation, namely the external validity of preclinical animal models.

Review of problems of external validity

External validity is the extent to which research findings derived in one setting, population or species can be reliably applied to other settings, populations and species. This paper argues that the reliable translation of findings from animals to humans will only occur if preclinical animal studies are both internally and externally valid. We review several key aspects that impact external validity in preclinical animal research, including unrepresentative animal samples, the inability of animal models to mimic the complexity of human conditions, the poor applicability of animal models to clinical settings and animal–human species differences. We suggest that while some problems of external validity can be overcome by improving animal models, the problem of species differences can never be overcome and will always undermine external validity and the reliable translation of preclinical findings to humans.

Conclusion

We conclude that preclinical animal models can never be fully valid due to the uncertainties introduced by species differences. We suggest that even if the next several decades were spent improving the internal and external validity of animal models, the clinical relevance of those models would, in the end, only improve to some extent. This is because species differences would continue to make extrapolation from animals to humans unreliable. We suggest that to improve clinical translation and ultimately benefit patients, research should focus instead on human-relevant research methods and technologies.

Noninterventional Treatment Options for Stroke

Given the need for early restoration of blood flow and preservation of partially damaged brain cells after ischemic stroke, the noninterventional treatment of stroke relies heavily on the speedy recognition and classification of the clinical syndrome. Initiation of systemic thrombolysis with careful observation of contraindications within the 3.0 (4.5)-hour time window is the approved therapy of choice. Management of hemorrhagic complications and resumption of oral anticoagulation if indicated are also discussed in this article.

Paradigm Shift to Neuroimmunomodulation for Translational Neuroprotection in Stroke

The treatment of acute ischemic stroke is still an unresolved clinical problem since the only approved therapeutic intervention relies on early blood flow restoration through pharmacological thrombolysis, mechanical thrombus removal, or a combination of both strategies. Due to their numerous complications and to the narrow time-window for the intervention, only a minority of stroke patients can actually benefit from revascularization procedures, highlighting the urgent need of identifying novel strategies to prevent the progression of an irreversible damage in the ischemic penumbra. During the past three decades, the attempts to target the pathways implicated in the ischemic cascade (e.g., excitotoxicity, calcium channels overactivation, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production) have failed in the clinical setting. Based on a better understanding of the pathobiological mechanisms and on a critical reappraisal of most failed trials, numerous findings from animal studies have demonstrated that targeting the immune system may represent a promising approach to achieve neuroprotection in stroke. In particular, given the dualistic role of distinct components of both the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system, a strategic intervention should be aimed at establishing the right equilibrium between inflammatory and reparative mechanisms, taking into consideration their spatio-temporal recruitment after the ischemic insult. Thus, the application of immunomodulatory drugs and their ability to ameliorate outcomes deserve validation in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

BACKGROUND

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.

OBJECTIVES

i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.

METHODS

Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.

RESULTS

The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits.