And since all survivors want 100% recovery this roadmap will get us there, RIGHT? But somehow they are focused on useless biomarkers! BIOMARKERS DO NOT DELIVER RECOVERY! Are you that blitheringly stupid?
New roadmap aims to transform stroke recovery through personalized rehabilitation
An international task force co-led by a Georgetown University stroke expert has outlined a new roadmap for stroke recovery, positioning genetic and blood biomarkers to drive the next generation of precision neurorehabilitation and biotherapy. The framework aligns with Georgetown's strategic focus on advancing brain health and accelerating discoveries that restore function and independence after neurological injury.
The roadmap appears in the International Journal of Stroke in a paper titled "Molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable."
Most stroke recovery is facilitated by occupational, physical or speech therapy. The general consensus in the field is that all of these are beneficial and that more is better.
However, it is still not known how much therapy is optimal, when it is best to deliver therapy or which method of delivery is best. Because there are also challenges in measuring the effects of these interventions on brain plasticity in real time, molecular biomarkers could help answer such questions.
More importantly, there is only a basic understanding of how the human brain repairs itself after a stroke. Gaining this knowledge is crucial to developing effective biotherapeutics for the recovery phase of stroke—a period in which there are currently no proven treatments outside occupational, physical and speech therapy.
"There are major discoveries waiting to be made that will tell us how the human brain adapts to injury and repairs itself after a stroke. These discoveries have the potential to be extremely useful in developing new medicines or therapies that will reduce the disability that many suffer after a stroke," says Matthew A. Edwardson, M.D., associate professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine and a member of the stroke team at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
"Notably, the reason these discoveries have not yet been made is that most earlier stroke recovery studies were at single centers with a small number of patients, with blood collected at a single time point after a stroke or with nonspecific methods of measuring stroke recovery."
Edwardson, who co-chaired the task force with Robynne Braun, M.D., Ph.D., from the University of Maryland, also notes that much larger studies with multiple blood samples collected at the same time points for each patient, using the same outcome measures, are necessary to achieve the statistical power needed to make more informed choices in the future.
Given that molecular innovations have dramatically advanced fields like cardiovascular disease, leading to individualized antiplatelet regimens and targeted lipid-lowering therapies, it is notable that molecular research in clinical stroke recovery has lagged behind.
Edwardson says there are multiple reasons for this lag:
- Stroke recovery studies are difficult to conduct logistically. For most acute studies, data are collected at hospital admission; after discharge, the patient is called 90 days later to obtain outcomes by phone. In contrast, a recovery study might require a patient to be seen again at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after discharge. This follow-up might occur at home, at a nursing facility or at an inpatient rehabilitation facility at different times, making it more challenging to collect study data at these varied locations.
- Recovery studies have traditionally been expensive if they employ a rehabilitation intervention because a therapist needs to deliver the care over multiple weeks.
- There has been limited pharmaceutical industry investment in the recovery phase of stroke, so there have been few large studies in this arena.
A central pivot of the new task force consensus is a refreshed definition of Stroke Recovery Biomarkers. Rather than focusing solely on predicting a patient's ultimate outcome—recovery as a product—the task force prioritizes understanding the underlying biology—recovery as a process.
The task force made numerous suggestions to advance the field, including:
- Harmonizing molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery studies to collect blood at the same time points and collect the same outcome measures, including those for specific deficits like arm or leg weakness, speech or language disorders and cognitive problems. "The crucial next step would be the analysis of the data in a rigorous manner, including replication across patient groups that are composed of different geographic populations and/or ethnic backgrounds," Edwardson says.
- Larger, international studies are needed because, in other fields of medicine, major discoveries using genomics did not occur until sample sizes were in the thousands. "This will require investment: funding for these larger studies, infrastructure for biorepositories to store samples on different continents, and expertise to help guide interested researchers who want to participate," he explains.
- A key principle is that recovery biomarkers should not be used to deny access to care. In surveying other experts in the field, the task force found that many are worried that a molecular biomarker predicting certain patients are likely to have poor recovery could be used by an insurance company to deny them access to rehabilitation care. "The task force wants to stress that molecular biomarkers should not be used in this manner to ration resources, but rather to learn more about the molecular biology of a stroke to develop new treatments," Edwardson says.
Edwardson's work in tailoring rehabilitation is ongoing. A member of the Center for Brain Plasticity and Recovery at Georgetown University and MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital, Edwardson and his Georgetown colleagues recently received a Thomas A. Reynolds III Return to Function Challenge Grant for a related study titled "Circulating Molecular Biomarkers to Monitor Cellular and Organ Remodeling During Stroke Recovery."
"The identification of a promising pipeline of biomarkers is key in brain health and stroke recovery," Edwardson says.(Completely false, biomarkers don't deliver recovery!) "The next step is to rigorously validate them in larger patient populations so they can become the foundation for a new era of precision stroke rehabilitation."
More information
Molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable, International Journal of Stroke (2026).
No comments:
Post a Comment