Autologous incubated macrophage therapy in acute, complete spinal cord injury: results of the phase 2 randomized controlled multicenter trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with single-blinded primary outcome assessment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of autologous incubated macrophage treatment for improving neurological outcome in patients with acute, complete spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Six SCI treatment centers in the United States and Israel. METHODS: Participants with traumatic complete SCI between C5 motor and T11 neurological levels who could receive macrophage therapy within 14 days of injury were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the treatment (autologous incubated macrophages) or control (standard of care) groups. Treatment group participants underwent macrophage injection into the caudal boundary of the SCI. The primary outcome measure was American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) A-B or better at ≥6 months. Safety was assessed by analysis of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Of 43 participants (26 treatment, 17 control) having sufficient data for efficacy analysis, AIS A to B or better conversion was experienced by 7 treatment and 10 control participants; AIS A to C conversion was experienced by 2 treatment and 2 control participants. The primary outcome analysis for subjects with at least 6 months follow-up showed a trend favoring the control group that did not achieve statistical significance (P=0.053). The mean number of AEs reported per participant was not significantly different between the groups (P=0.942). CONCLUSION: The analysis failed to show a significant difference in primary outcome between the two groups. The study results do not support treatment of acute complete SCI with autologous incubated macrophage therapy as specified in this protocol.

A phase 2 autologous cellular therapy trial in patients with acute, complete spinal cord injury: pragmatics, recruitment, and demographics.

STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc analysis from a randomized controlled cellular therapy trial in acute, complete spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVES: Description and quantitative review of study logistics, referral patterns, current practice patterns and subject demographics. SETTING: Subjects were recruited to one of six international study centers. METHODS: Data are presented from 1816 patients pre-screened, 75 participants screened and 50 randomized. RESULTS: Of the 1816 patients pre-screened, 53.7% did not meet initial study criteria, primarily due to an injury outside the time window (14 days) or failure to meet neurological criteria (complete SCI between C5 motor/C4 sensory and T11). MRIs were obtained on 339 patients; 51.0% were ineligible based on imaging criteria. Of the 75 participants enrolled, 25 failed screening (SF), leaving 50 randomized. The primary reason for SF was based on the neurological exam (51.9%), followed by failure to meet MRI criteria (22.2%). Of the 50 randomized subjects, there were no significant differences in demographics in the active versus control arms. In those participants for whom data was available, 93.8% (45 of 48) of randomized participants received steroids before study entry, whereas 94.0% (47 of 50) had spine surgery before study enrollment. CONCLUSION: The 'funnel effect' (large numbers of potentially eligible participants with a small number enrolled) impacts all trials, but was particularly challenging in this trial due to eligibility criteria and logistics. Data collected may provide information on current practice patterns and the issues encountered and addressed may facilitate design of future trials.

Recruitment and early treatment in a multicenter study of acute spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc secondary analysis of data from 1992 to 1998 in the trial of Sygen in Acute Spinal Cord Injury. OBJECTIVES: Quasi-epidemiologic understanding of injury and treatment patterns and of recruitment in an SCI trial. No drug efficacy results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The most recent large epidemiologic study was the National SCI Database by Stover and colleagues around 1980. METHODS: Emphasis on descriptive, rather than inferential, statistics: consistent with secondary analysis. RESULTS: The study involved 760 patients at 28 centers in North America. Cervical injuries were more common than thoracic, and complete injuries were more common than incomplete injuries. Recruitment in the complete cervical stratum was 332, but the incomplete thoracic strata had only 31 patients combined. Vital signs at arrival and on randomization show fair stability. Clock times show more injuries on weekends and nights but suggest immediate attention was given. Elapsed times to treatment (especially EMT and Medevac arrival) are short. The rate of direct admission to tertiary centers, traction weight, and time to surgery vary among centers. Inpatient rehabilitation appeared driven by insurance in addition to severity. CONCLUSIONS: The imbalances in favor of cervical and of complete injuries would make it hard for studies to attain results for SCI in general. The vital signs and time patterns suggest local protocol-driven stabilization to prevent secondary physiologic injury early after SCI. Some features of care vary among centers, but the sparseness of prospective data in specific injury and treatment categories suggests that treatment guidelines have limited empirical support and should be made cautiously.

Measurements and recovery patterns in a multicenter study of acute spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc, secondary analysis of data from 1992 to 1998 in the trial of Sygen in acute spinal cord injury. OBJECTIVES: Quasi-epidemiologic understanding of measurement tools and of recovery patterns. No drug efficacy results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many authors have studied individual scales for measuring the severity of spinal cord injury. METHODS: Emphasis on descriptive, rather than inferential, statistics: consistent with secondary analysis. RESULTS: Of the 760 patients, 43 died within 365 days. The rate was higher for complete injuries (7.1% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.017). Marked recovery at 26 weeks was more frequent in those with better baseline American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) scores, but was not different for methylprednisolone within versus after 3 hours. Light touch scores improved at each visit, more so in those with higher scores at baseline. Bladder control similarly improved. Motor and sensory scores exhibited departures from assumptions underlying normal-theory statistical techniques: t test and analysis of variance. Furthermore, they were mixtures of differing distributions from different study strata, so that overall conclusions depend on the mixture of patients seen. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of these patients with spinal cord injury seen at 28 centers in North America during the mid-1990s appears better than was often assumed earlier. The general patterns are similar across different measurement scales, although there are intriguing differences. The patterns in different strata are different in specifics, and complete injuries do less well. Pooling data from different strata may result in probability distributions that depart from normal-theory assumptions and give misleading results depending on recruitment patterns.

The Sygen multicenter acute spinal cord injury study.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, sequential, multicenter clinical trial of two doses of Sygen versus placebo. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy and safety of Sygen in acute spinal cord injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An earlier, single-center trial in 28 patients showed an improvement (50.0% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.034) in marked recovery with Sygen. METHODS: Standard clinical trial techniques. RESULTS: The prospectively planned analysis at the prespecified endpoint time for all patients was negative. There was a significant effect in all patients in the primary outcome variable (the percentage of marked recovery) at week 8, the end of the dosing period. There was a significant effect in all patients in the time at which marked recovery is first achieved. Restricted to severity Group B, which has small sample size, the primary efficacy analysis showed a trend but did not reach significance. There is a large, consistent and, at some time points, significant effect in the primary outcome variable in the nonoperated patients through week 26. The American Spinal Injury Association motor, light touch, and pinprick scores showed a consistent trend in favor of Sygen, as also did bowel function, bladder function, sacral sensation, and anal contraction. The less severely injured patients appeared to have a greater beneficial drug effect. Evidence against an effect of Sygen was minimal and scattered. CONCLUSIONS: Although not proven in the primary efficacy analysis of this trial, Sygen appears to be beneficial in patients with severe spinal cord injury.