Search

While preclinical stroke studies have shown that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) promote recovery, few randomized controlled trials (RCT) have assessed cell therapy in humans. In this RCT, we assessed the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of intravenous autologous bone marrow-derived MSCs in subacute stroke. ISIS-HERMES was a single-center, open-label RCT, with a 2-year follow-up. We enrolled patients aged 18-70 years less than 2 weeks following moderate-severe ischemic carotid stroke. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous MSCs or not. Primary outcomes assessed feasibility and safety. Secondary outcomes assessed global and motor recovery. Passive wrist movement functional MRI (fMRI) activity in primary motor cortex (MI) was employed as a motor recovery biomarker. We compared "treated" and "control" groups using as-treated analyses. Of 31 enrolled patients, 16 patients received MSCs. Treatment feasibility was 80%, and there were 10 and 16 adverse events in treated patients, and 12 and 24 in controls at 6-month and 2-year follow-up, respectively. Using mixed modeling analyses, we observed no treatment effects on the Barthel Index, NIHSS, and modified-Rankin scores, but significant improvements in motor-NIHSS (p = 0.004), motor-Fugl-Meyer scores (p = 0.028), and task-related fMRI activity in MI-4a (p = 0.031) and MI-4p (p = 0.002). Intravenous autologous MSC treatment following stroke was safe and feasible. Motor performance and task-related MI activity results suggest that MSCs improve motor recovery through sensorimotor neuroplasticity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00875654.

In the future, stroke patients may receive stem cell therapy as this has the potential to restore lost functions. However, the development of clinically deliverable therapy has been slower and more challenging than expected. Despite recommendations by STAIR and STEPS consortiums, there remain flaws in experimental studies such as lack of animals with comorbidities, inconsistent approaches to experimental design, and concurrent rehabilitation that might lead to a bias towards positive results. Clinical studies have typically been small, lacking control groups as well as often without clear biological hypotheses to guide patient selection. Furthermore, they have used a wide range of cell types, doses, and delivery methods, and outcome measures. Although some ongoing and recent trial programs offer hints that these obstacles are now being tackled, the Horizon2020 funded RESSTORE trial will be given as an example of inconsistent regulatory requirements and challenges in harmonized cell production, logistic, and clinical criteria in an international multicenter study. The PISCES trials highlight the complex issues around intracerebral cell transplantation. Therefore, a better understanding of translational challenges is expected to pave the way to more successful help for stroke patients.

In clinical trials, assessing efficacy is based on validated scales, and the primary endpoint is usually based on a single scale. The aim of the review is to revisit the concepts and methods to design and analyze studies focused on restoration, recovery and or compensation. These studies are becoming more frequent with the development of restorative medicine. After discussing the definitions of recovery, we address the concept of recovery as the regain of lost capabilities, when the patient reaches a new equilibrium. Recovery is a dynamic process which assessment includes information from initial and final status, their difference, the difference between the final status of the patient and normality, and the speed of restoration. Finally, recovery can be assessed either for a specific function (focal restoration) or for a more global restoration. A single scale is not able to assess all the facets of a skill or a function, therefore complementary information should be collected and analyzed simultaneously to be tested in a single analysis. We are suggesting that recovery should be considered as a latent variable and therefore cannot be measured in pure form. We are also suggesting to customize the data collection and analysis according to the characteristics of the subjects, the mechanisms of action and consequences of the intervention. Moreover, recovery trials should benefit from latent variable analysis methods. Structural equation modeling is likely the best candidate for this approach applicable in pre-clinical and clinical studies.