Ethnic minorities with critical limb ischemia derive equal amputation risk reduction from autologous cell therapy compared with whites

Recent developments in targets for ischemic foot disease

Diabetes is a key risk factor for ischaemic foot disease, which causes pain, tissue loss, hospital admission, and major amputation. Currently, treatment focuses on revascularisation, but many patients are unsuitable for surgery and revascularisation is frequently unsuccessful. The authors describe recent research in animal models and clinical trials investigating novel medical targets for ischaemia, including theories about impaired wound healing, animal models for limb ischaemia and recent randomised controlled trials testing novel medical therapies. Novel targets identified in animal models included stimulating mobilisation of CD34+ progenitor cells through upregulating oncostatin M or microRNA-181, downregulating tumour necrosis factor superfamily member 14, or activating the Wingless pathway. Within the ischaemic limb vasculature, upregulation of apolipoprotein L domain containing 1, microRNA-130b or long noncoding RNA that enhances endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression promoted limb blood supply recovery, angiogenesis, and arteriogenesis. Similarly, administration of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators riociguat or praliciguat or 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase inhibitor trimetazidine promoted blood flow recovery. Translating pre-clinical findings to patients has been challenging, mainly due to limitations in clinically translatable animal models of human disease. Promising results have been reported for administering plasmids encoding hepatocyte growth factor or intra-arterial injection of bone marrow derived cells in small clinical trials. It remains to be seen whether these high resource therapies can be developed to be widely applicable. In conclusion, an ever-expanding list of potential targets for medical revascularisation is being identified. It is hoped that through ongoing research and further larger clinical trials, these will translate into new broadly applicable therapies to improve outcomes.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) causes significant morbidity with profound negative effects on health-related quality of life. As the prevalence of peripheral artery disease and diabetes continue to rise in our aging population, the public health impact of CLTI has escalated. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become common and important measures for clinical evaluation in both clinical care and research. PROMs are important for the measurement of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness and for shared decision-making on treatment options. However, the PROMs used to describe the experience of patients with CLTI are heterogeneous, incomplete, and lack specific applicability to the underlying disease processes and diverse populations. For example, certain PROMs exist for patients with extremity wounds, and other PROMs exist for patients with pain, and still others exist for patients with vascular disease. Despite this multiplicity of tools, no single PROM encompasses all of the components necessary to describe the experiences of patients with CLTI. This significant unmet need is evident from both published reports and contemporary large-scale clinical trials in the field. In this systematic review, we review the current use of PROMs for patients with CLTI in clinical practice and in research trials and highlight the gaps that need to be addressed to develop a unifying PROM instrument for CLTI.

Contemporary Outcomes of Limb-Salvage Procedures Using Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare Linked Data: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist

INTRODUCTION

Several reports have shown that ethnic and racial minorities with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are more likely to undergo major amputation. Whether this disparity is driven by limited access to care, statistical discrimination or biological factors remains a matter of debate. We sought to study the effect of race/ethnicity on short and long-term outcomes of limb-salvage procedures among patients with new onset CLTI.

METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent first time (open or endovascular) revascularization for CLTI between January 2010 and December 2016 in the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare linked database. These patients were divided into non-Hispanic whites (NHW) and racial/ethnic minority (REM) groups. Early end points included length of stay and operative mortality, while 2-year outcomes included major amputation, freedom from subsequent revascularization, number of limb salvage reinterventions and all-cause mortality. A sub-analysis comparing NHWs to Hispanics and NHWs to blacks was also performed.

RESULTS

Of 16,249 presenting with CLTI, 73.9% were non-Hispanic whites. Racial/ethnic minority patients were younger (mean age, 69.9 ± 11.3 years vs 74.2 ± 10.5 years; P < .001) and more likely to be female (45.9% vs 37.7%; P < .001). Other baseline differences included a higher rate of smoking history, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease among non-Hispanic whites, whereas racial/ethnic minority patients were more likely to have diabetes and hypertension and more likely to present with tissue loss (78% vs 76.6%; P =.04). Preoperative ankle-brachial index and procedure type (endovascular vs open) were similar between the groups. On multivariable analysis, NHW's had a 13% increase in length of stay and a 25% decrease in operative mortality. In regard to 2-year outcomes, limb salvage estimates were 86% for the NHW group versus 77.1% for the REM group; P < .001. Comparison between the two groups showed similar rates of freedom from subsequent revascularization (67.9% vs 67.1%; P =.2). REM patients achieved higher rates of overall survival (70.3% vs 68.4%; P =.01) when compared to their white counterparts. Patients in the REM group were more likely to undergo more than two limb salvage reinterventions during follow-up (14.2% vs 8.6%; P < .001). After adjusting for potential confounders, REM patients had significantly higher odds of major amputation at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.63; P < .001) CONCLUSIONS: In this Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare matched study, racial and ethnic minority patients continue to face a higher major amputation risk despite having equivalent attempts at limb salvage. Further studies identifying risk factors and evaluating intervention strategies that may be more effective in preventing amputation in this particular population are warranted.

Medical adjunctive therapy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this article is to systematically review the literature on medical adjunctive therapy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies published between January 1st, 2009, and June 1st, 2019. Articles that studied medical treatment of CLTI patients and reported clinical outcomes were eligible. Main exclusion criteria were case reports <20 patients, incorrect publication type, and CLTI caused by Buerger disease. The primary end point was major amputation (above the ankle) in studies with a follow-up of ≥6 months. Secondary end points were other clinical end points such as death and wound healing. Study quality was assessed according to the Downs and Black checklist.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Included were 42 articles: four focused on antiplatelet therapy, five on antihypertensive medication, 6 on lipid-lowering therapy, 16 on stem cell therapy, three on growth factors, five on prostanoids, and one study each on cilostazol, glucose-lowering therapy, spinal cord stimulation, sulodexide, and hemodilution. Calcium channel blockers, iloprost, cilostazol, and hemodilution showed significant improvement of limb salvage, but data are limited. Stem cell therapy showed no significant improvement of limb salvage but could potentially improve wound healing. Antiplatelets, antihypertensives, and statins showed significantly lower cardiovascular events rates but not evident lower major amputation rates. The quality of the studies was fair to good.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain medical therapies serve to improve limb salvage next to revascularization in CLTI patients, whereas others are important in secondary prevention. Because high quality evidence is limited, further research is needed.

Autologous cells derived from different sources and administered using different regimens for 'no-option' critical lower limb ischaemia patients

BACKGROUND

Revascularisation is the gold standard therapy for patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI). In over 30% of patients who are not suitable for or have failed previous revascularisation therapy (the 'no-option' CLI patients), limb amputation is eventually unavoidable. Preliminary studies have reported encouraging outcomes with autologous cell-based therapy for the treatment of CLI in these 'no-option' patients. However, studies comparing the angiogenic potency and clinical effects of autologous cells derived from different sources have yielded limited data. Data regarding cell doses and routes of administration are also limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.