Muzammil Mushtaq

Transendocardial Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Mononuclear Bone Marrow Cells for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The TAC-HFT Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE Whether culture-expanded mesenchymal stem cells or whole bone marrow mononuclear cells are safe and effective in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy is controversial. OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the safety of transendocardial stem cell injection with autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMCs) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A phase 1 and 2 randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study involving 65 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction less than 50% (September 1, 2009-July 12, 2013). The study compared injection of MSCs (n=19) with placebo (n = 11) and BMCs (n = 19) with placebo (n = 10), with 1 year of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS Injections in 10 LV sites with an infusion catheter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Treatment-emergent 30-day serious adverse event rate defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, perforation, tamponade, or sustained ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS No patient had a treatment-emergent serious adverse events at day 30. The 1-year incidence of serious adverse events was 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6% to 56.6%) for MSCs, 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6%-56.6%) for BMCs, and 38.1% (95% CI, 18.1%-61.6%) for placebo. Over 1 year, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score improved with MSCs (-6.3; 95% CI, -15.0 to 2.4; repeated measures of variance, P=.02) and with BMCs (-8.2; 95% CI, -17.4 to 0.97; P=.005) but not with placebo (0.4; 95% CI, -9.45 to 10.25; P=.38). The 6-minute walk distance increased with MSCs only (repeated measures model, P = .03). Infarct size as a percentage of LV mass was reduced by MSCs (-18.9%; 95% CI, -30.4 to -7.4; within-group, P = .004) but not by BMCs (-7.0%; 95% CI, -15.7% to 1.7%; within-group, P = .11) or placebo (-5.2%; 95% CI, -16.8% to 6.5%; within-group, P = .36). Regional myocardial function as peak Eulerian circumferential strain at the site of injection improved with MSCs (-4.9; 95% CI, -13.3 to 3.5; within-group repeated measures, P = .03) but not BMCs (-2.1; 95% CI, -5.5 to 1.3; P = .21) or placebo (-0.03; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.9; P = .14). Left ventricular chamber volume and ejection fraction did not change. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Transendocardial stem cell injection with MSCs or BMCs appeared to be safe for patients with chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy and LV dysfunction. Although the sample size and multiple comparisons preclude a definitive statement about safety and clinical effect, these results provide the basis for larger studies to provide definitive evidence about safety and to assess efficacy of this new therapeutic approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00768066.

Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Produce Concordant Improvements in Regional Function, Tissue Perfusion, and Fibrotic Burden When Administered to Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting The Prospective Randomized Study of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery (PROMETHEUS) Trial

Rationale: Although accumulating data support the efficacy of intramyocardial cell-based therapy to improve left ventricular (LV) function in patients with chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing CABG, the underlying mechanism and impact of cell injection site remain controversial. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) improve LV structure and function through several effects including reducing fibrosis, neoangiogenesis, and neomyogenesis. Objective: To test the hypothesis that the impact on cardiac structure and function after intramyocardial injections of autologous MSCs results from a concordance of prorecovery phenotypic effects. Methods and Results: Six patients were injected with autologous MSCs into akinetic/hypokinetic myocardial territories not receiving bypass graft for clinical reasons. MRI was used to measure scar, perfusion, wall thickness, and contractility at baseline, at 3, 6, and 18 months and to compare structural and functional recovery in regions that received MSC injections alone, revascularization alone, or neither. A composite score of MRI variables was used to assess concordance of antifibrotic effects, perfusion, and contraction at different regions. After 18 months, subjects receiving MSCs exhibited increased LV ejection fraction (+9.4±1.7%, P=0.0002) and decreased scar mass (−47.5±8.1%; P<0.0001) compared with baseline. MSC-injected segments had concordant reduction in scar size, perfusion, and contractile improvement (concordant score: 2.93±0.07), whereas revascularized (0.5±0.21) and nontreated segments (−0.07±0.34) demonstrated nonconcordant changes (P<0.0001 versus injected segments). Conclusions: Intramyocardial injection of autologous MSCs into akinetic yet nonrevascularized segments produces comprehensive regional functional restitution, which in turn drives improvement in global LV function. These findings, although inconclusive because of lack of placebo group, have important therapeutic and mechanistic hypothesis-generating implications. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00587990. Unique identifier: NCT00587990.

Myocardial infarction and intramyocardial injection models in swine

Sustainable and reproducible large animal models that closely replicate the clinical sequelae of myocardial infarction (MI) are important for the translation of basic science research into bedside medicine. Swine are well accepted by the scientific community for cardiovascular research, and they represent an established animal model for preclinical trials for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of novel therapies. Here we present a protocol for using porcine models of MI created with a closed-chest coronary artery occlusion-reperfusion technique. This creates a model of MI encompassing the anteroapical, lateral and septal walls of the left ventricle. This model infarction can be easily adapted to suit individual study design and enables the investigation of a variety of possible interventions. This model is therefore a useful tool for translational research into the pathophysiology of ventricular remodeling and is an ideal testing platform for novel biological approaches targeting regenerative medicine. This model can be created in approximately 8–10 h.

Does Transendocardial Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Myocardial Function Locally or Globally? An Analysis From the Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis (POSEIDON) Randomized Trial

Rationale: Transendocardial stem cell injection (TESI) with mesenchymal stem cells improves remodeling in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the effect of the injection site remains unknown. Objective: To address whether TESI exerts its effects at the site of injection only or also in remote areas, we hypothesized that segmental myocardial scar and segmental ejection fraction improve to a greater extent in injected than in noninjected segments. Methods and Results: Biplane ventriculographic and endocardial tracings were recorded. TESI was guided to 10 sites in infarct-border zones. Sites were mapped according to the 17-myocardial segment model. As a result, 510 segments were analyzed in 30 patients before and 13 months after TESI. Segmental early enhancement defect (a measure of scar size) was reduced by TESI in both injected (−43.7±4.4%; n=95; P<0.01) and noninjected segments (−25.1±7.8%; n=148; P<0.001; between-group comparison P<0.05). Conversely, segmental ejection fraction (a measure of contractile performance) improved in injected scar segments (19.9±3.3–26.3±3.5%; P=0.003) but not in noninjected scar segments (21.3±2.6–23.5±3.2%; P=0.20; between-group comparison P<0.05). Furthermore, segmental ejection fraction in injected scar segments improved to a greater degree in patients with baseline segmental ejection fraction <20% (12.1±1.2–19.9±2.7%; n=18; P=0.003), versus <20% (31.7±3.4–35.5±3.3%; n=12; P=0.33, between-group comparison P<0.0001). Conclusions: These findings illustrate a dichotomy in regional responses to TESI. Although scar size reduction was evident in all scar segments, scar size reduction and ventricular functional responses preferentially occurred at the sites of TESI versus non-TESI sites. Furthermore, improvement was greatest when segmental left ventricular dysfunction was severe.Rationale: Transendocardial stem cell injection (TESI) with mesenchymal stem cells improves remodeling in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the effect of the injection site remains unknown. Objective: To address whether TESI exerts its effects at the site of injection only or also in remote areas, we hypothesized that segmental myocardial scar and segmental ejection fraction improve to a greater extent in injected than in noninjected segments. Methods and Results: Biplane ventriculographic and endocardial tracings were recorded. TESI was guided to 10 sites in infarct-border zones. Sites were mapped according to the 17-myocardial segment model. As a result, 510 segments were analyzed in 30 patients before and 13 months after TESI. Segmental early enhancement defect (a measure of scar size) was reduced by TESI in both injected (−43.7±4.4%; n=95; P <0.01) and noninjected segments (−25.1±7.8%; n=148; P <0.001; between-group comparison P <0.05). Conversely, segmental ejection fraction (a measure of contractile performance) improved in injected scar segments (19.9±3.3–26.3±3.5%; P =0.003) but not in noninjected scar segments (21.3±2.6–23.5±3.2%; P =0.20; between-group comparison P <0.05). Furthermore, segmental ejection fraction in injected scar segments improved to a greater degree in patients with baseline segmental ejection fraction <20% (12.1±1.2–19.9±2.7%; n=18; P =0.003), versus <20% (31.7±3.4–35.5±3.3%; n=12; P =0.33, between-group comparison P <0.0001). Conclusions: These findings illustrate a dichotomy in regional responses to TESI. Although scar size reduction was evident in all scar segments, scar size reduction and ventricular functional responses preferentially occurred at the sites of TESI versus non-TESI sites. Furthermore, improvement was greatest when segmental left ventricular dysfunction was severe. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-37}

Does Transendocardial Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Myocardial Function Locally or Globally? An Analysis From the POSEIDON Randomized Trial

Rationale: Transendocardial stem cell injection (TESI) with mesenchymal stem cells improves remodeling in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the effect of the injection site remains unknown. Objective: To address whether TESI exerts its effects at the site of injection only or also in remote areas, we hypothesized that segmental myocardial scar and segmental ejection fraction improve to a greater extent in injected than in noninjected segments. Methods and Results: Biplane ventriculographic and endocardial tracings were recorded. TESI was guided to 10 sites in infarct-border zones. Sites were mapped according to the 17-myocardial segment model. As a result, 510 segments were analyzed in 30 patients before and 13 months after TESI. Segmental early enhancement defect (a measure of scar size) was reduced by TESI in both injected (−43.7±4.4%; n=95; P<0.01) and noninjected segments (−25.1±7.8%; n=148; P<0.001; between-group comparison P<0.05). Conversely, segmental ejection fraction (a measure of contractile performance) improved in injected scar segments (19.9±3.3–26.3±3.5%; P=0.003) but not in noninjected scar segments (21.3±2.6–23.5±3.2%; P=0.20; between-group comparison P<0.05). Furthermore, segmental ejection fraction in injected scar segments improved to a greater degree in patients with baseline segmental ejection fraction <20% (12.1±1.2–19.9±2.7%; n=18; P=0.003), versus <20% (31.7±3.4–35.5±3.3%; n=12; P=0.33, between-group comparison P<0.0001). Conclusions: These findings illustrate a dichotomy in regional responses to TESI. Although scar size reduction was evident in all scar segments, scar size reduction and ventricular functional responses preferentially occurred at the sites of TESI versus non-TESI sites. Furthermore, improvement was greatest when segmental left ventricular dysfunction was severe.Rationale: Transendocardial stem cell injection (TESI) with mesenchymal stem cells improves remodeling in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the effect of the injection site remains unknown. Objective: To address whether TESI exerts its effects at the site of injection only or also in remote areas, we hypothesized that segmental myocardial scar and segmental ejection fraction improve to a greater extent in injected than in noninjected segments. Methods and Results: Biplane ventriculographic and endocardial tracings were recorded. TESI was guided to 10 sites in infarct-border zones. Sites were mapped according to the 17-myocardial segment model. As a result, 510 segments were analyzed in 30 patients before and 13 months after TESI. Segmental early enhancement defect (a measure of scar size) was reduced by TESI in both injected (−43.7±4.4%; n=95; P <0.01) and noninjected segments (−25.1±7.8%; n=148; P <0.001; between-group comparison P <0.05). Conversely, segmental ejection fraction (a measure of contractile performance) improved in injected scar segments (19.9±3.3–26.3±3.5%; P =0.003) but not in noninjected scar segments (21.3±2.6–23.5±3.2%; P =0.20; between-group comparison P <0.05). Furthermore, segmental ejection fraction in injected scar segments improved to a greater degree in patients with baseline segmental ejection fraction <20% (12.1±1.2–19.9±2.7%; n=18; P =0.003), versus <20% (31.7±3.4–35.5±3.3%; n=12; P =0.33, between-group comparison P <0.0001). Conclusions: These findings illustrate a dichotomy in regional responses to TESI. Although scar size reduction was evident in all scar segments, scar size reduction and ventricular functional responses preferentially occurred at the sites of TESI versus non-TESI sites. Furthermore, improvement was greatest when segmental left ventricular dysfunction was severe. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-37}

Rationale and design of the Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis in Dilated Cardiomyopathy (the POSEIDON-DCM study): a phase I/II, randomized pilot study of the comparative safety and efficacy of transendocardial injection of autologous mesenchymal stem cell vs. allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells in patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

While accumulating clinical trials have focused on the impact of cell therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic cardiomyopathy, there are fewer efforts to examine cell-based therapy in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). We hypothesized that cell therapy could have a similar impact in NICM. The POSEIDON-DCM trial is a phase I/II trial designed to address autologous vs. allogeneic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in patients with NICM. In this study, cells will be administered transendocardially with the NOGA injection-catheter system to patients (n = 36) randomly allocated to two treatment groups: group 1 (n = 18 auto-human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSC)) and group 2 (n = 18 allo-hMSCs). The primary and secondary objectives are, respectively, to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of allo-hMSCS vs. auto-hMSCs in patients with NICM. This study will establish safety of transendocardial injection of stem cells (TESI), compare phenotypic outcomes, and offer promising advances in the field of cell-based therapy in patients with NICM.

Dose Comparison Study of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (The TRIDENT Study)

Rationale: Cell dose and concentration play crucial roles in phenotypic responses to cell-based therapy for heart failure. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of allogeneic bone marrow–derived human mesenchymal stem cells identically delivered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods and Results: Thirty patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy received in a blinded manner either 20 million (n=15) or 100 million (n=15) allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cells via transendocardial injection (0.5 cc per injection × 10 injections per patient). Patients were followed for 12 months for safety and efficacy end points. There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events at 30 days or treatment-related serious adverse events at 12 months. The Major Adverse Cardiac Event rate was 20.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 13.3% (95% CI, 3.5% to 43.6%) in 100 million (P=0.58). Worsening heart failure rehospitalization was 20.0% (95% CI, 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 7.1% (95% CI, 1.0% to 40.9%) in 100 million (P=0.27). Whereas scar size reduced to a similar degree in both groups: 20 million by −6.4 g (interquartile range, −13.5 to −3.4 g; P=0.001) and 100 million by −6.1 g (interquartile range, −8.1 to −4.6 g; P=0.0002), the ejection fraction improved only with 100 million by 3.7 U (interquartile range, 1.1 to 6.1; P=0.04). New York Heart Association class improved at 12 months in 35.7% (95% CI, 12.7% to 64.9%) in 20 million and 42.9% (95% CI, 17.7% to 71.1%) in 100 million. Importantly, proBNP (pro-brain natriuretic peptide) increased at 12 months in 20 million by 0.32 log pg/mL (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.62; P=0.039), but not in 100 million (−0.07 log pg/mL; 95% CI, −0.36 to 0.23; P=0.65; between group P=0.07). Conclusions: Although both cell doses reduced scar size, only the 100 million dose increased ejection fraction. This study highlights the crucial role of cell dose in the responses to cell therapy. Determining optimal dose and delivery is essential to advance the field, decipher mechanism(s) of action and enhance planning of pivotal Phase III trials. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02013674.

Combination therapy for hypertension 2013: An update

We provide a review of recent additions to the antihypertensive armamentarium in the form of combination therapy. These include two-drug and three-drug combinations in a single pill. There is evidence that such combinations are more efficacious than the individual components and that patient adherence to therapy is improved.

Cell Therapy for Heart Disease: To Genetically Modify or Not, That Is the Question

See related article, pages 478–489 Cell-based therapy for heart diseases, ranging from myocardial infarction, hibernating myocardium, to ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies, is a potentially transformative approach to address unmet needs for the treatment of these chronic diseases.1 As this field moves forward rapidly, pressing questions continue to require resolution. Of these, perhaps the most pressing question is what are the features of an ideal cell type to be used for cardiovascular therapeutics.1 In this context, several investigative teams have undertaken the approach of starting with a reasonable candidate cell, whether that be an adult stem cell, such as a mesenchymal stem cell2 (MSC) or cardiac stem cell (CSC),3,4 or a pluripotent stem cell,5 and then enhancing that cell by genetic modification or incubation with factors or cytokines6 capable of optimizing the ability of the cell to engraft, survive, and/or differentiate. This approach has uniformly produced positive results using MSCs and CSCs with a number of genetic modifications (Table). View this table: Table. Impact of Modification of MSCs or CSCs on Phenotypic Outcome In this issue of Circulation Research , Cho et al show that overexpression of the serine/threonine kinase glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3β enhances the therapeutic properties of bone marrow–derived MSCs in a mouse model of myocardial infarction.7 These encouraging findings add to a growing list of kinases, …

Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Ameliorate Aging Frailty: A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract Background Aging frailty, characterized by decreased physical and immunological functioning, is associated with stem cell depletion. Human allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells (allo-hMSCs) exert immunomodulatory effects and promote tissue repair. Methods This is a randomized, double-blinded, dose-finding study of intravenous allo-hMSCs (100 or 200-million [M]) vs placebo delivered to patients (n = 30, mean age 75.5 ± 7.3) with frailty. The primary endpoint was incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TE-SAEs) at 1-month postinfusion. Secondary endpoints included physical performance, patient-reported outcomes, and immune markers of frailty measured at 6 months postinfusion. Results No therapy-related TE-SAEs occurred at 1 month. Physical performance improved preferentially in the 100M-group; immunologic improvement occurred in both the 100M- and 200M-groups. The 6-minute walk test, short physical performance exam, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second improved in the 100M-group (p = .01), not in the 200M- or placebo groups. The female sexual quality of life questionnaire improved in the 100M-group (p = .03). Serum TNF-α levels decreased in the 100M-group (p = .03). B cell intracellular TNF-α improved in both the 100M- (p < .0001) and 200M-groups (p = .002) as well as between groups compared to placebo (p = .003 and p = .039, respectively). Early and late activated T-cells were also reduced by MSC therapy. Conclusion Intravenous allo-hMSCs were safe in individuals with aging frailty. Treated groups had remarkable improvements in physical performance measures and inflammatory biomarkers, both of which characterize the frailty syndrome. Given the excellent safety and efficacy profiles demonstrated in this study, larger clinical trials are warranted to establish the efficacy of hMSCs in this multisystem disorder. Clinical Trial Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov: CRATUS (#NCT02065245).