What are potential barriers and enablers to patient and physician participation in Canadian cell therapy trials for stroke? A stakeholder interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Early phase cell therapy trials face many barriers to successful, timely completion. To optimise the conduct of a planned clinical trial of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy for chronic stroke, we sought patient and physician views on possible barriers and enablers that may influence their participation. DESIGN: Semistructured interview study. SETTING: Patients were recruited from three rehabilitation centres in Ontario, Canada; physicians were recruited from across Canada through snowball sampling. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen chronic stroke patients (patients who had experienced a stroke at least 3 months prior; 10 male, 3 female) and 15 physicians (stroke physiatrists; 9 male, 6 female) participated in our interview study. Data adequacy was reached after 13 patient interviews and 13 physician interviews. METHODS: Interview guides and directed content analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Interviews were coded, and relevant themes were identified. RESULTS: Most patients were optimistic about participating in an MSC therapy clinical trial, and many expressed interest in participating, even if it was a randomised controlled trial with the possibility of being allocated to a placebo group. However, the method of administration of cells (intravascular preferred to intracerebral) and goal of the trial (efficacy preferred to safety) may influence their intention to participate. All physicians expressed interest in screening for the trial, though many stated they were less motivated to contribute to a safety trial. Physicians also identified several time-related barriers and the need for resources to ensure feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: This novel application of the TDF helped identify key potential barriers and enablers prior to conducting a clinical trial of MSC therapy for stroke. This will be used to refine the design and conduct of our trial. A similar approach may be adopted by other investigators considering early phase cell therapy trials.

Mapping the preclinical to clinical evidence and development trajectory of the oncolytic virus talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC): a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence to chart the successful trajectory of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) from the bench to the clinic. DESIGN: This study was a systematic review. The primary outcome of interest was the efficacy of treatment, determined by complete response. Abstract and full-text selection as well as data extraction were done by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in studies. SETTING: Embase, Embase Classic and OvidMedline were searched from inception until May 2016 to assess its development trajectory to approval in 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Preclinical and clinical controlled comparison studies, as well as observational studies. INTERVENTIONS: T-VEC for the treatment of any malignancy. RESULTS: 8852 records were screened and five preclinical (n=150 animals) and seven clinical studies (n=589 patients) were included. We saw large decreases in T-VEC's efficacy as studies moved from the laboratory to patients, and as studies became more methodologically rigorous. Preclinical studies reported complete regression rates up to 100% for injected tumours and 80% for contralateral tumours, while the highest degree of efficacy seen in the clinical setting was a 24% complete response rate, with one study experiencing a complete response rate of 0%. We were unable to reliably assess safety due to the lack of reporting, as well as the heterogeneity seen in adverse event definitions. All preclinical studies had high or unclear risk of bias, and all clinical studies were at a high risk of bias in at least one domain. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate that even successful biotherapeutics may not demonstrate a clear translational road map. This emphasises the need to consider increasing rigour and transparency along the translational pathway. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016043541.

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Safety and Efficacy of Adult Stem Cell Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Ischemic Heart Failure (SafeCell Heart): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may be beneficial in treating both acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ischemic heart failure (IHF). However, the safety profile and efficacy of MSC therapy is not well-known. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials that evaluated the safety or efficacy of MSCs for AMI or IHF. Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to September 27, 2017. Studies that examined the use of MSCs administered to adults with AMI or IHF were eligible. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias of included studies. The primary outcome was safety assessed by adverse events and the secondary outcome was efficacy which was assessed by mortality and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A total of 668 citations were reviewed and 23 studies met eligibility criteria. Of these, 11 studies evaluated AMI and 12 studies evaluated IHF. There was no association between MSCs and acute adverse events. There was a significant improvement in overall LVEF in patients who received MSCs (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.24-1.21). No significant difference in mortality was noted (Peto OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.38-1.22). Results from our systematic review suggest that MSC therapy for ischemic heart disease appears to be safe. There is a need for a well-designed adequately powered randomized control trial (with rigorous adverse event reporting and evaluations of cardiac function) to further establish a clear risk-benefit profile of MSCs. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2018;7:857-866.