Search

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a growing epidemic and is independently associated with increased risk of death, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular events. Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in this domain are notoriously challenging and many clinical studies in AKI have yielded inconclusive findings. Underlying this conundrum is the inherent heterogeneity of AKI in its etiology, presentation and course. AKI is best understood as a syndrome and identification of AKI subphenotypes is needed to elucidate the disease's myriad etiologies and to tailor effective prevention and treatment strategies. Conventional RCTs are logistically cumbersome and often feature highly selected patient populations that limit external generalizability and thus alternative trial designs should be considered when appropriate. In this narrative review of recent developments in AKI trials based on the Kidney Disease Clinical Trialists (KDCT) 2020 meeting, we discuss barriers to and strategies for improved design and implementation of clinical trials for AKI patients, including predictive and prognostic enrichment techniques, the use of pragmatic trials and adaptive trials.

AimsCONCERT-HF is an NHLBI-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial designed to determine whether treatment with autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), given alone or in combination, is feasible, safe, and beneficial in patients with heart failure (HF) caused by ischaemic cardiomyopathy.Methods and resultsPatients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to transendocardial injection of MSCs combined with CPCs, MSCs alone, CPCs alone, or placebo, and followed for 12 months. Seven centres enrolled 125 participants with left ventricular ejection fraction of 28.6 ± 6.1% and scar size 19.4 ± 5.8%, in New York Heart Association class II or III. The proportion of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was significantly decreased by CPCs alone (-22% vs. placebo, P = 0.043). Quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score) was significantly improved by MSCs alone (P = 0.050) and MSCs + CPCs (P = 0.023) vs. placebo. Left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular volumes, scar size, 6-min walking distance, and peak oxygen consumption did not differ significantly among groups.ConclusionsThis is the first multicentre trial assessing CPCs and a combination of two cell types from different tissues in HF patients. The results show that treatment is safe and feasible. Even with maximal guideline-directed therapy, both CPCs and MSCs were associated with improved clinical outcomes (MACE and quality of life, respectively) in ischaemic HF without affecting left ventricular function or structure, suggesting possible systemic or paracrine cellular mechanisms. Combining MSCs with CPCs was associated with improvement in both these outcomes. These results suggest potential important beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs and support further investigation in HF patients.

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper.

This chapter will review the unique aspects and limitations of the design of phase I/II (safety and efficacy) clinical trials of stem cell therapy. Although the classical pharmacologic principles applicable to drugs are not applicable to biologic (live cell) therapeutic agents, an important stage in the development of any new therapeutic agent is the establishment of an optimal dosage and delivery route. This can be particularly challenging when the treatment is a biologic agent, such as stem cells, that may exert its therapeutic effects via complex or poorly understood mechanisms. To date, clinical studies have shown inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between cell dose and clinical outcomes. This can be at least partially attributed to variations in donor cell type, source, characteristics, dosing/concentration, delivery route, underlying mechanisms of action, and efficacy endpoints tested. The current recommendations will be reviewed herein to give new investigators a general understanding of the unique issues that need to be considered and addressed when designing a stem cell therapy phase I/II clinical trial.

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper.

Bone marrow mononuclear cell (BM-MNC) therapy in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) has no biological inclusion criteria. Here, we analyzed 63 biomarkers and cytokines in baseline plasma samples from 77 STEMI patients treated with BM-MNCs in the TIME and Late-TIME trials as well as 61 STEMI patients treated with placebo. Response to cell therapy was defined by changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic/diastolic volumes, and wall motion indexes. We investigated the clinical value of circulating proteins in outcome prediction using significance testing, partial least squares discriminant analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Responders had higher biomarker levels (76-94% elevated) than non-responders. Several biomarkers had values that differed significantly (P < 0.05) between responders and non-responders including stem cell factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and interleukin-15. We then used these lead candidates for ROC analysis and found multiple biomarkers with values areas under the curve >0.70 including interleukin 15. These biomarkers were not involved in the placebo-treated subjects suggesting that they may have predictive power. We conclude that plasma profiling after STEMI may help identify patients with a greater likelihood of response to cell-based treatment. Prospective trials are needed to assess the predictive value of the circulating biomarkers.

Bone marrow mononuclear cell (BM-MNC) therapy in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) has no biological inclusion criteria. Here, we analyzed 63 biomarkers and cytokines in baseline plasma samples from 77 STEMI patients treated with BM-MNCs in the TIME and Late-TIME trials as well as 61 STEMI patients treated with placebo. Response to cell therapy was defined by changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic/diastolic volumes, and wall motion indexes. We investigated the clinical value of circulating proteins in outcome prediction using significance testing, partial least squares discriminant analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Responders had higher biomarker levels (76-94% elevated) than non-responders. Several biomarkers had values that differed significantly (P < 0.05) between responders and non-responders including stem cell factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and interleukin-15. We then used these lead candidates for ROC analysis and found multiple biomarkers with values areas under the curve >0.70 including interleukin 15. These biomarkers were not involved in the placebo-treated subjects suggesting that they may have predictive power. We conclude that plasma profiling after STEMI may help identify patients with a greater likelihood of response to cell-based treatment. Prospective trials are needed to assess the predictive value of the circulating biomarkers.