Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in experimental stroke and its effects on infarct size and functional outcome: a systematic review

Background Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) shows promise as a treatment for stroke. This systematic review assesses G-CSF in experimental ischaemic stroke. Methods Relevant studies were identified with searches of Medline, Embase and PubMed. Data were extracted on stroke lesion size, neurological outcome and quality, and analysed using Cochrane Review Manager using random effects models; results are expressed as standardised mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR). Results Data were included from 19 publications incorporating 666 animals. G-CSF reduced lesion size significantly in transient (SMD -1.63, p<0.00001) but not permanent (SMD -1.56, p=0.11) focal models of ischaemia. Lesion size was reduced at all doses and with treatment commenced within 4 hours of transient ischaemia. Neurological deficit (SMD -1.37, p=0.0004) and limb placement (SMD -1.88, p=0.003) improved with G-CSF; however, locomotor activity (>4 weeks post ischaemia) was not (SMD 0.76, p=0.35). Death (OR 0.27, p<0.0001) was reduced with G-CSF. Median study quality was 4 (range 0-7/8); Egger’s test suggested significant publication bias (p=0.001). Conclusions G-CSF significantly reduced lesion size in transient but not permanent models of ischaemic stroke. Motor impairment and death were also reduced. Further studies assessing dose-response, administration time, length of ischaemia and long-term functional recovery are needed.

Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies: a metaepidemiologic approach

Background and Purpose: At least part of the failure in the transition from experimental to clinical studies in stroke has been attributed to the imprecision introduced by problems in the design of experimental stroke studies. Using a metaepidemiologic approach, we addressed the effect of randomization, blinding, and use of comorbid animals on the estimate of how effectively therapeutic interventions reduce infarct size. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify meta-analyses that described interventions in experimental stroke. For each meta-analysis thus identified, a reanalysis was conducted to estimate the impact of various quality items on the estimate of efficacy, and these estimates were combined in a meta meta-analysis to obtain a summary measure of the impact of the various design characteristics. Results: Thirteen meta-analyses that described outcomes in 15 635 animals were included. Studies that included unblinded induction of ischemia reported effect sizes 13.1% (95% CI, 26.4% to 0.2%) greater than studies that included blinding, and studies that included healthy animals instead of animals with comorbidities overstated the effect size by 11.5% (95% CI, 21.2% to 1.8%). No significant effect was found for randomization, blinded outcome assessment, or high aggregate CAMARADES quality score. Conclusions: We provide empirical evidence of bias in the design of studies, with studies that included unblinded induction of ischemia or healthy animals overestimating the effectiveness of the intervention. This bias could account for the failure in the transition from bench to bedside of stroke therapies.