Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Showing posts with label etanercept. Show all posts
Showing posts with label etanercept. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Perispinal Etanercept for Post-Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review

 

Finally proof on this. Here's all the previous unproven writeups on this and the stuff from Dr. Tobinick's unproven uses.

You'll want to read all of the previous posts on Etanercept for other uses and risks and the previous unproven uses. Unless you really think your doctor has a good handle on this.

  • etanercept (43 posts to February 2011)
  • dr. Tobinick (33 posts to November 2012)
  • Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Perispinal Etanercept for Post-Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review

    Meha Sanghi • Nawat Khanijoun • Nahla Hamza

    Published: November 12, 2025

    DOI: 10.7759/cureus.96707 

    Peer-Reviewed
    Cite this article as: Sanghi M, Khanijoun N, Hamza N (November 12, 2025) Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Perispinal Etanercept for Post-Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review . Cureus 17(11): e96707. doi:10.7759/cureus.96707

    Abstract

    Stroke remains a leading cause of long-term disability in adults, with many survivors experiencing persistent neurological and functional deficits. Conventional rehabilitation offers limited benefit once recovery plateaus. Biological therapies targeting chronic mechanisms of neural dysfunction, such as perispinal etanercept (PSE), a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitor, have been proposed as potential alternatives. This systematic review evaluates the safety and effectiveness of PSE for neurological recovery in adults with chronic post-stroke deficits. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science identified human studies assessing PSE in stroke ≥six months post-event. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2), Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. Eligible studies included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, and case-based reports describing neurological, functional, cognitive, or safety outcomes. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: two randomised controlled trials, one large observational cohort, one case series, and one case report. The available evidence showed variable outcomes. Some studies reported short-term improvements in pain and motor function, whereas others found no significant overall functional or quality-of-life gains. Reported benefits, when observed, were typically domain-specific and not consistently sustained. Treatment was well tolerated, with no major safety concerns reported. Robust, large-scale trials are still needed to establish consistent functional benefits and long-term efficacy. Future research should focus on optimising treatment protocols and identifying responsive patient phenotypes through neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers. Well-designed multicenter trials with standardised stroke-specific endpoints and extended follow-up are essential to determine the true therapeutic value of PSE before routine clinical adoption.












     

    Friday, September 19, 2025

    International Trial Finds Perispinal Etanercept No More Effective Than Placebo for Stroke Recovery

     Finally proof on this. Here's all the previous unproven writeups on this and the stuff from Dr. Tobinick's unproven uses.

    You'll want to read all of the previous posts on Etanercept for other uses and risks and the previous unproven uses. Unless you really think your doctor has a good handle on this.

  • etanercept (40 posts to February 2011)
  • dr. Tobinick (32 posts to November 2012)
  •  

    International Trial Finds Perispinal Etanercept No More Effective Than Placebo for Stroke Recovery

    A recent international clinical trial has determined that “perispinal” etanercept, an unproven treatment for stroke recovery, is no more effective than a placebo. The study, which marks the first global evaluation of this therapy, found the treatment to be harmless but concluded it offered no significant benefits over an inactive dummy drug.

    The trial involved injecting etanercept into the spinal area of participants and comparing its effects to those of a placebo. Researchers reported no measurable improvement in outcomes among patients who received the treatment compared to those given the placebo. Despite being available in the United States as a potential option for stroke recovery, the findings suggest that perispinal etanercept does not provide any added therapeutic advantage. The study’s results contribute to ongoing discussions about evidence-based treatments for stroke rehabilitation.

    Saturday, September 6, 2025

    Safety and Efficacy of Perispinal Etanercept for Chronic Stroke

     You'll want to read all of the previous posts on Etanercept for other uses and risks and the previous unproven uses. Unless you really think your doctor has a good handle on this.

  • etanercept (41 posts to February 2011)
  • Safety and Efficacy of Perispinal Etanercept for Chronic Stroke

    Vincent N. Thijs https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-8417, Geoffrey C. Cloud https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8365-6907, Nigel Gilchrist, Brooke Parsons, Forum Tilvawala https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1209-3880, Jan Kee Ho, Lara Ruthnam https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4526-3895, … Show All … , and Julie Bernhardt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-8484Authors Info & Affiliations
    September 23, 2025 issue
    105 (6)
    https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000213981

    Background and Objectives

     Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability. Etanercept, a competitive tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor, has been proposed as a potential treatment for post-stroke impairments when given through a perispinal subcutaneous injection. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of perispinal etanercept in patients with chronic stroke.

    Methods

    The Perispinal Etanercept for Stroke Outcomes Study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial conducted in 3 ambulatory research clinics in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged between 18 and 70 years, had a stroke between 1 and 15 years before enrollment, had a modified Rankin Scale score of 2–5, and demonstrated reduced quality of life as assessed by the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants at day 28 with an improvement of 5 points or more on the SF-36v2 compared with baseline after a single injection of etanercept 25 mg or equivalent placebo. The primary safety outcome was the difference in the proportion over 28 days of serious adverse events after a single injection of etanercept 25 mg or equivalent placebo. The primary outcome and safety were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Participants were followed up 56 days after the first injection of perispinal etanercept.

    Results

    Recruitment ceased early because of lack of continued funding. We screened 147 participants, of whom 126 were enrolled and randomized (63 etanercept: 63 placebo; 48 [38%] female, median (interquartile range) age 54.5 (45.0–60.0) years, median time since stroke 3 years). The primary outcome of improvement occurred in 33 of 63 participants (53%) in the etanercept arm and 36 of 63 participants (58%) in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.40–1.67, standardized risk difference −5%, 95% CI −22% to 13%). The proportion of serious adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.

    Discussion

    Perispinal etanercept was safe, but we found no evidence of improvement in quality of life and other efficacy outcomes compared with placebo.

    Trial Registration Information

    The trial was registered at anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12620001011976) on October 7, 2020. Patients were enrolled between November 4, 2020, and September 1, 2023.

    Classification of Evidence

    This study provides Class I evidence that in patients with imaging-confirmed ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, perispinal etanercept (25 mg) injection does not improve the patients' quality of life 28 days after injection.

    Introduction

     Despite advances in management, a considerable proportion of stroke survivors are left with disabling neurologic impairments. Medical treatment options are limited.Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) has been implicated in the pathophysiology of stroke recovery.2-4 TNF-α is a proinflammatory cytokine that plays a critical role in the neuroinflammatory response after stroke. Elevated levels of TNF-α have been associated with blood-brain barrier disruption, neuronal injury, and impaired neuroplasticity, suggesting that modulation of TNF-α activity may support functional recovery.2,3 Preclinical studies have demonstrated that inhibiting TNF-α signaling can reduce secondary brain injury and improve outcomes in experimental models.3 Emerging hypotheses further propose that persistent microglial activation, sustained through an autocrine positive feedback loop involving TNF-α, may underlie chronic neurologic dysfunction after stroke.5 However, although biologically plausible, this model remains speculative and requires further experimental validation.
    Etanercept competitively inhibits TNF-α but is unable to cross the blood-brain barrier because of its high molecular weight.6 Nevertheless, etanercept has been proposed to improve post-stroke impairments when administered subcutaneously in the interspinous cervical spine, followed by head-down positioning.7-9 This method purportedly bypasses the blood-brain barrier. In a preclinical study, CNS penetration with perispinal administration of radiolabeled etanercept was shown in a single rat.10 However, a subsequent study challenged this assertion, finding no evidence for the passage of radiolabeled etanercept into the CNS after perispinal injection in rats.11 Instead, the drug was observed to accumulate locally in the perispinal region. Nevertheless, human observational studies have documented substantial improvements in various post-stroke impairments. A retrospective review of 617 patients with chronic stroke—treated an average of 3.5 years after stroke with some treated even decades later—reported significant improvements in motor function, spasticity, sensory perception, cognition, and pain relief after perispinal etanercept treatment.7 Effects persisted at least for weeks after a single administration, with some patients reporting additional effects with repeated administration.7 An additional report in 3 patients showed improvements within minutes in multiple domains after a single administration, with further improvement after a second administration.12 A pilot, double-blind placebo controlled randomized trial of 26 patients with chronic post-stroke pain tested 2 doses of perispinal etanercept. This study was stopped after an interim analysis showed a significant, rapid improvement in pain levels and improvement in mobility of the shoulder. There was no improvement in fatigue and depression levels or sit-to-stand measures.8
    Interviews with patients who received off-label etanercept in private clinics further indicated that treatment is offered to patients with moderate-to-severe disability and that receiving 2 injections is common practice.
    To generate high-quality evidence, stroke survivors in Australia successfully lobbied the Australian government to fund a clinical trial to independently evaluate the current practice of etanercept to treat stroke.
    The aim of the Perispinal Etanercept for Stroke Outcomes Study (PESTO) trial was to assess whether perispinal administration of etanercept (25 mg) was superior to placebo in improving health-related quality of life in patients with imaging-confirmed ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with chronic disability and reduced quality of life 28 days after injection.

    Methods

    Study Design and Participants

    The PESTO trial was a phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study conducted across 3 outpatient centers in Australia and New Zealand. The study adopted a parallel group design with concealed allocation, blinded assessment of outcomes, and analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) oversaw the trial safety and reviewed study conduct. The investigator team included a stroke survivor, who provided essential guidance on selecting outcome measures, structuring study visits to minimize participant burden, and shaping the patient-facing materials from a lived-experience perspective. The study was conducted following the principles of Good Clinical Practice.

    Standard Protocol Approvals, Registrations, and Patient Consents

    Study protocols and amendments were approved by the ethics committee at each site. All participants or their legal representatives provided written informed consent. The first and most recent version of the signed protocol and the statistical analysis plan finalized before the study data lock are provided as supplemental material (eSAP1). The trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620001011976), and the trial protocol was published.13 The following amendments to the inclusion criteria were made during the course of the trial to increase recruitment rates: Age at time of stroke was expanded and permitted inclusion of patients with stroke at age 16 or 17 but were at least 18 at time of inclusion (protocol version 2.1) and inclusion of patients with stroke up to age 70 (previously 65, protocol version 2.0). Time since stroke was increased to 15 years (previously 5 years, protocol version 2.0). We also permitted inclusion of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 2 with reduced quality of life, as measured using a 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) score of <80 (previously only mRS scores 3–5 were included, protocol version 2.1).

    Participant Criteria

    The study included adults aged 18–70 years who had an imaging-confirmed ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke 1–15 years before enrollment. We enriched the trial population by including participants with moderate-to-severe disability, as indicated by a mRS score of 3–5 and an SF-36 score of 95 or less, or a mRS score of 2 with an SF-36 score less than 80.14 Exclusion criteria were contraindications to etanercept, certain infectious diseases, immunosuppressive agent use, severe heart conditions, malignancy history, or recent botulinum toxin injection as listed in the detailed criteria in the protocol.

    Randomization and Allocation

    Randomization was stratified by whether the prerandomization quality-of-life questionnaire was completed by the participant, or, if not possible, by a proxy; baseline mRS scores (dichotomized as mRS scores 2–3 vs mRS scores 4–5); and time since stroke (1–5 years vs >5 years after stroke onset). Stratification by baseline mRS scores was performed using combined categories (mRS scores 2–3 vs mRS scores 4–5), rather than individual mRS scores. Participants were first randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a single dose of the etanercept (etanercept arm) or placebo (the control arm) using a centralized computer-generated random assignment procedure with permuted blocks of various sizes as part of the Research Electronic Data Capture electronic case record form. At the second step of the randomization procedure conducted at the same time point, the participants in the placebo arm were subsequently randomized into receiving either the second dose of placebo or a single dose of etanercept at day 28 after the first injection (based on a 2:1 allocation ratio), whereas participants in the etanercept arm were subsequently randomized into receiving either a single dose of placebo or the second dose of etanercept at day 28 (based on a 1:2 allocation ratio). This resulted in 3 equally sized, covariate-balanced arms (placebo n = 56, single dose of etanercept n = 56, and two doses of etanercept n = 56) for the secondary dose-response analysis of the efficacy outcome at day 56. The study flow is presented in Figure 1. A researcher not otherwise involved in the trial undertook the randomization and allocation to treatment arms, thereby ensuring allocation concealment. The treatment allocation was sent electronically to the unblinded study pharmacist who prepared the investigational product. Because etanercept may produce a yellow discoloration, the syringe was wrapped in a yellow transparent foil by the unblinded pharmacist and handed over to the blinded study investigator before the delivery. Participants, study investigators, study site personnel assessing outcomes, and the sponsor were masked to treatment group allocation.

    Thursday, February 23, 2023

    Etanercept in Alzheimer disease

    With your increased chances of dementia you'll want your doctor and hospital to ensure followup research is done. If not, you don't have a functioning stroke doctor or hospital.  This is a different application of etanercept as compared to Dr. Tobinicks.

    Your risk of dementia, has your doctor told you of this?

    1. A documented 33% dementia chance post-stroke from an Australian study?   May 2012.

    2. Then this study came out and seems to have a range from 17-66%. December 2013.`    

    3. A 20% chance in this research.   July 2013.

    4. Dementia Risk Doubled in Patients Following Stroke September 2018 

    Your risk of Parkinsons here:

    Parkinson’s Disease May Have Link to Stroke March 2017 

    The latest here:

    Etanercept in Alzheimer disease

    A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

    Joseph Butchart, Laura Brook, Vivienne Hopkins, Jessica Teeling, Ursula Püntener, David Culliford, Richard Sharples, Saif Sharif, Brady McFarlane, Rachel Raybould, Rhodri Thomas, Peter Passmore, V. Hugh Perry, Clive Holmes

    Abstract

    Objectives: To determine whether the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor etanercept is well tolerated and obtain preliminary data on its safety in Alzheimer disease dementia.

    Methods: In a double-blind study, patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease dementia were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg) once weekly or identical placebo over a 24-week period. Tolerability and safety of this medication was recorded including secondary outcomes of cognition, global function, behavior, and systemic cytokine levels at baseline, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, and following a 4-week washout period. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2009-013400-31) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01068353).

    Results: Forty-one participants (mean age 72.4 years; 61% men) were randomized to etanercept (n = 20) or placebo (n = 21). Etanercept was well tolerated; 90% of participants (18/20) completed the study compared with 71% (15/21) in the placebo group. Although infections were more common in the etanercept group, there were no serious adverse events or new safety concerns. While there were some interesting trends that favored etanercept, there were no statistically significant changes in cognition, behavior, or global function.

    Conclusions: This study showed that subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg/wk) was well tolerated in this small group of patients with Alzheimer disease dementia, but a larger more heterogeneous group needs to be tested before recommending its use for broader groups of patients.

    Classification of evidence: This study shows Class I evidence that weekly subcutaneous etanercept is well tolerated in Alzheimer disease dementia.

    Tuesday, February 21, 2023

    Rapid improvement 10 years after brain injury due to cardiac arrest after treatment by Dr. Tobinick

    Until this is confirmed by independent testers(not affiliated with any of the researchers), I refuse to trust videos like this.   Good researchers would provide independent verification. Testing by qualified therapists would take hours to verify so I call for better research verification. This is the same style of video I despised when Dr. Tobinick used it.

    Thursday, December 22, 2022

    Randomized controlled trial validating the use of perispinal etanercept to reduce post-stroke disability has wide-ranging implications

    Prior to this research I was extremely antagonistic towards Dr. Edward Tobinicks' use of this method. All he did was provide videos with no factual context and it seemed like a scam to pick money out of survivors pockets.  So we finally have some RCTs that look promising.

    Randomized controlled trial validating the use of perispinal etanercept to reduce post-stroke disability has wide-ranging implications


    Pages 203-205 | Received 13 Jan 2020, Accepted 05 Feb 2020, Accepted author version posted online: 06 Feb 2020, Published online: 13 Feb 2020

    Developing effective drug treatments for neurodegenerative disorders has always been hamstrung by the accepted inability of large molecules (roughly those with a molecular weight greater than 600 Daltons) to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in therapeutic quantities when administered systemically. The dogma has been that a simple, noninvasive way to accomplish this goal is not possible with many agents, including biologicals, because they are too large. Various novel technologies to breach the BBB have been attempted, but with little success. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (RCT) administering a widely used anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biological, etanercept, given via perispinal injection, which bypasses the BBB, turns this dogma on its head. This new trial holds much promise for stroke survivors, as well as having implications for developing treatments based on other large molecules for this and other brain disorders.

    1. Relevance of TNF

    The polypeptide tumor necrosis factor (TNF), first described in the mid 1970s, has proved to be an extremely pleiotropic cytokine that has a central role in physiology, pathology, and the innate immune system in organisms ranging from corals to humans. At physiological levels, it is an important and widespread signaling molecule. Once TNF had been appreciated to be generated and act in the brain as well as elsewhere, it proved to be a multifunction gliotransmitter that caused trouble if generated excessively.

    2. The novel perispinal route of administration

    The Key Paper discussed here [1] employs perispinal delivery of etanercept, a biological agent widely used to treat chronic systemic inflammatory disease, to address post-stroke syndromes. The outcome is discussed below. Etanercept acts through potently and specifically neutralizing TNF. Edward Tobinick, whose extensive collection of published observational studies over a decade this trial formally tests, published an extended review on perispinal etanercept delivery to the brain in Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics in 2010 [2] and an update elsewhere six years later [3]. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the term perispinal had sometimes been used in the 1970s as a regional anatomical term [4], which is quite different to its precise usage here [3]. With much attention being drawn to this cytokine’s roles in chronic degenerative disease in the central nervous system, as well as its central involvement in disease pathogenesis generally (see [5,6] and [7] for reviews), any excess generation of it is an obvious therapeutic target. The challenge is how to get enough of these large TNF-neutralizing molecules through or past the BBB into the brain, where studies employing intracerebroventricular injections in mice over the years had demonstrated activity. Over 15 years ago Tobinick farsightedly addressed this challenge. Equipped with intimate knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of a long-forgotten venous system, he reasoned that it plausibly constituted a direct vascular route for drug delivery to the brain [8]. In this publication he used the term ‘cerebrospinal venous system’ (CSVS) to describe these vessels. In the same year (2006) Tobinick and colleagues reported the effects of perispinally injected etanercept followed by Trendelenburg positioning in a six-month open trial in Alzheimer’s disease [9]. The results were very promising, but by 2008 both of the Big Pharmas who had earlier acquired the etanercept patent inexplicably refused to discuss furthering the perispinal approach or funding the trials needed to achieve regulatory approval.

    Years earlier, during aviation medicine research into the effects of negative gravity in rabbits, Wen and coworkers had demonstrated that head-down positioning for a short period made the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) barrier permeable to plasma albumin [10]. Mindful of this, in 2009 Tobinick and colleagues from Stanford demonstrated, in a rat model, that perispinal injection of radiolabelled etanercept, followed by head-down (Trendelenburg positioning), enabled it to rapidly reach the choroid plexus and the CSF within the cerebral ventricles [11]. This was consistent with Wen’s report with albumin, despite etanercept being a larger molecule (150,000 vs. 66,000 Daltons). Delivery of a labeled anti-TNF molecule via perispinal injection to the choroid plexus plus head-down positioning has recently been confirmed in an additional rat model [12].

    In addition, collections of observational studies using this perispinal method of delivering etanercept to the brain, beginning in 2010, have reported impressive outcomes in treating post-stroke neurological dysfunction in many patients [1317]. To summarize a recent text [12] that illustrates and quotes additional anatomical detail, perispinal injection followed by a short period of head-down positioning [10] may therefore be expected to enable etanercept to be delivered to the brain through the choroid plexus, the cerebral venous system, and the cerebrospinal fluid, thus bypassing the BBB. Such a route is consistent with the reported presence of labeled etanercept within the brain in experimental studies [11,12].

    3. Unusual delay in an RTC testing perispinal etanercept

    Unfortunately, a clinical trial of these promising observational studies continued to be delayed for over a decade. In the course of much favorable off-label treatment of post-stroke patients, many independent observers, from 2011 to the present, including non-neurological medical practitioners, nurses, speech pathologists, and neuroscientists, have witnessed this negligibly invasive treatment technique and its outcome in post-stroke patients. When faced with a striking mix of rapid onset, effectiveness, and persistence of outcome in an important circumstance where the usefulness of present treatments is very low, a common conclusion by these observers has been that this novel approach warrants an independent RCT. Nevertheless, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), despite no member of its governing board having witnessed the treatment, or having addressed the science behind it, continues to display an on-line Clinical Advisory that explicitly discourages its members, and indeed any neurologist who reads it, from any association with this approach. In effect, the AAN fell in line behind the Big Pharma patent owners. Their position continues unchanged, despite the validity of the AAN’s actions being questioned in an editorial some years ago in Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics [18] and the publication of additional supportive evidence [19,20]. Thus almost all neurologists, following the AAN’s advice, have ignored invitations to observe or engage in this work, thereby establishing, for years, a quite unjustified barrier to clinical translation of the perispinal method, with its potential for wide application in disease and research.

    4. Validation of perispinal etanercept technique in a randomized controlled trial

    This bottleneck has now been overcome by a clinical trial outside the US funded by the community-based Stroke Recovery Trial Fund (https://strokerecoverytrialfund.org), a national health promotion charity formed by Dr Coralie Graham in 2015 in Queensland, Australia, and funded by individual donations from the public, to compensate for AAN and Pharma intransigence. The first publication arising from the funding of this organization is a modestly-sized university-conducted randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of perispinal etanercept for chronic intractable central post-stroke pain [1]. This condition is notoriously difficult to treat and its unmet medical need is substantial. The trial subjects were selected for having had, among their symptoms, unrelenting central post-stroke pain for an average of more than 4 years. Approval of the study was obtained from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics committee (MSC/10/14/HREC).

    Results were consistent with the previously published observational studies, in that shoulder flexion and pain attenuation demonstrated statistically significant improvements in study participants receiving perispinal etanercept compared to the placebo control. Indeed, in an appreciable percentage of those receiving perispinal etanercept, despite their history of years of daily intractable pain, there was rapid (within 30 minutes) and often nearly complete pain abatement, whereas no change occurred in the saline control group with the same pain. This outcome is remarkable, and quite unmatched by any present therapeutic approach for post-stroke pain. From the limited trial duration it was possible to fund, this relief lasted for at least 30 days. In addition, 90% of the etanercept group, but none of the placebo group, showed highly significant rapid enhancements in both active and passive shoulder flexion range of movement, indicating less spasticity of arm muscles. The effect was clear cut (p = 0.003) after the first treatment and more so (p = 0.001) after the second, 14 days later. A dose response such as this, Bradford-Hill’s ‘biological gradient’, is one of the standard causation indicators.

    Clearly, the larger trials necessary for regulatory approval are a pressing need. The rapidity and unprecedented nature of outcomes in patients achieved by perispinal delivery of etanercept in this initial trial is especially notable. This indicates a direct effect of etanercept on the brain following its perispinal injection, and is consistent with the location of labeled etanercept within the brain in animal models after perispinal delivery [11,12].

    5. Wider ramifications of this RCT

    Moreover, since this trial was the first RCT testing of perispinal administration of any agent, other therapeutics aspiring to access the brain might well benefit from its further validation. An example is the novel experimental anti-TNF therapeutic, XPro1595, an engineered dominant negative inhibitor of TNF [21]. Unfortunately, as with etanercept, its size greatly retards brain entry, with about one-thousandth of the concentration attained in the plasma after peripheral injection being detected in the cerebrospinal fluid [22]. Given the outcome of the present RCT, XPro1595 may be most effective in human brain disease if also administered perispinally to bypass the BBB. Once proven safe and effective in humans, its unique characteristics [23] may give XPro1595 an advantage over etanercept, when frequent administration is required, of allowing the TNF-dependent innate immune system to keep latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis suppressed. Even so, regular testing for evidence of this organism has allowed regular subcutaneous etanercept to thrive as a treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where the dose is much higher that was used in the RCT under discussion here. Much off-label experience indicates that only one or two doses of perispinal etanercept, and therefore predictably its biosimilars, are required to treat a number of acquired brain injury states, including stroke.

    6. Five-year view

    The tantalizing prospect now emerges of perispinal delivery revolutionizing the treatment of a range of brain disorders, including the neurodegenerative states, by enabling effective brain delivery of not only etanercept, but also other large molecules. This includes other biologicals, but the principle is open ended. Regulatory approval of perispinal etanercept will, through widely utilizing the perispinal route in science, broaden the research base of chronic neurodegenerative states, and other cerebral conditions, such as brain cancer.

    Article highlights

    • The blood-brain barrier has effectively excluded the brain from much of the biotech revolution. Much research has attempted to clear this roadblock, but without success to date.

    • Perispinally injected etanercept, which involves injecting this anti-TNF biological into the cerebrospinal venous system before a short period of head-down tilt, has been commonly used by the originator of the technique since 2011 to treat post-stroke syndromes. Without witnessing the treatment, the Big Pharma owners of the patent for etanercept and the American Academy of Neurology have actively discouraged a trial.

    • Funding from the Australia public has made possible the first formal controlled trial of perispinal etanercept on post-stroke patients. Within the goals set, the outcome was statistically significant, often markedly so.

    • If confirmed in larger trials, this technique will likely have widespread usefulness in getting larger pharmaceuticals, particularly biologicals, into the brain in many different brain disease states, including cancer.

    Wednesday, October 14, 2020

    Stem cell clinic slapped with CBER warning

    Intrathecal administration is a route of administration for drugs via an injection into the spinal canal. So before you go down the route of using the

    Dr. Tobinick etanercept(Enbrel) injection, make sure they have a biologics license.

    Stem cell clinic slapped with CBER warning

    A chiropractor who operates a stem cell clinic has received an untitled letter from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing intrathecal and intravenous injection of human stem cell and tissue-based products to treat such serious conditions as Parkinson’s disease and diabetes.
     
    Michael Johnson runs Optimal Health Stem Cell and Wellness Institute, also doing business as OHSTEMCELL, in Appleton, WI. On 1 October, FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) sent Johnson, a chiropractic neurologist, a letter that referenced information on his firm’s website, Facebook page and YouTube channel.
     
    Through his business, said the letter, Johnson markets umbilical cord-derived cellular products to treat a variety of serious or life-threatening conditions. Multiple sclerosis, autism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson’s disease and traumatic brain injury are among the 21 conditions cited in the CBER letter.
     
    The Facebook page for Johnson’s business also markets human adipose tissue- and amniotic membrane-derived products for conditions including such autoimmune disorders as systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjogren’s disease, as well as “adrenal fatigue” and other serious conditions.
     
    To support the letter’s claim that Johnson intends his products to be administered intravenously or intrathecally, CBER pointed to a quote from one of OHSTEMCELL’s Facebook posts: “INTRATHECAL INJECTIONS! We use intrathecal injections into the spine with chronic neurological patients like MS, Parkinson’s and stroke rehab patients. An intrathecal injection allows the stem cells to cross the blood-brain barrier. Having the stem cells cross the blood-brain barrier helps the neurological patient to heal faster!”
     
    CBER’s letter clarifies that lawful marketing of OHSTEMCELL’s products would require that they have biologics licenses, which they do not. “Such unapproved uses raise potential significant safety concerns,” said CBER, adding that the risky routes of administration heighten the agency’s concern, since contaminated products injected intrathecally or intravenously “could cause a range of adverse events.”
     
    The letter is part of CBER’s ongoing work to regulate the broader field of regenerative medicine. In a consumer-facing page on its website, FDA notes that “There is a lot of misleading information on the internet about these products, including statements about the conditions they can be used to treat.” The agency encourages reporting through its MedWatch adverse event reporting system.
     
    In its warning letter, as in previous letters to stem cell clinics, CBER refers Johnson to its policy framework for human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) as delineated in a series of four guidance documents. No stem cell products have, to date, been approved to treat any orthopedic, neurologic, cardiovascular, or pulmonary disease, or to treat many of the other conditions referred to in the CBER letter.
     
    The OHSTEMCELL website calls stem cell therapy “one of the most cutting-edge and revolutionary natural therapies available,” but also asserts that “Stem cell therapy DOES NOT cure or treat any disease!” (emphasis original). The website asserts that “Stem Cells will repair and regenerate tissue and patients will show improvements for a period of up to 12-months…. Once healed, it is a permanent correction!”
     
    The website also asserts that “the FDA has specific guidelines for cellular therapy and we follow these guidelines to the letter!” A typical testing and treatment course, according to the website, will cost patients between $21,000 and $30,000.
     
    “Manufacturers and health care professionals who have any uncertainty regarding the regulatory status of their products are encouraged to contact FDA to obtain a recommendation or decision regarding the classification of an HCT/P,” said CBER in its letter, which requests a written response within 30 days of the letter’s receipt.

    Tuesday, May 19, 2020

    Anti-TNF and CNS Events: The Link Strengthens

    If you are thinking of doing the (INR - Institute of Neurological Recovery)Dr. Tobinick etanercept(Enbrel) injection you need to know of this risk.  But I  know nothing since I'm not medically trained, don't listen to me, make your own decision based on all factors.

    Etanercept is a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is used in adults to prevent joint damage caused by rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis.

    Anti-TNF and CNS Events: The Link Strengthens

    — Three-fold higher risk of inflammatory CNS adverse events in autoimmune diseases treated with TNF inhibitors


    A computer rendering of the nervous system
    Patients with autoimmune diseases who were treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors had an increased risk of developing inflammatory central nervous system (CNS) adverse events, a nested case-control study found.
    Among patients with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, and ulcerative colitis who were exposed to TNF inhibitors, there was a three-fold increased risk of any inflammatory CNS event in the study's primary analysis, with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.01 (95% CI 1.55-5.82, P=0.001), according to Andrew McKeon, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues.
    And the risk was almost five-fold higher among the subgroup of patients with RA specifically, with an adjusted OR of 4.82 (95% CI 1.62-14.36, P=0.005), the researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.
    A link between TNF inhibitors and demyelinating CNS events(not good, this is the multiple sclerosis problem) has been suspected since shortly after those agents became available more than 20 years ago. These events included multiple sclerosis (MS), optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. In a Spanish registry, there have been 740 reports of demyelinating events, 254 of which were MS, and 358 cases of optic neuritis.
    There also have been reports of inflammatory nondemyelinating CNS events such as neurosarcoidosis and CNS vasculitis, although less is known about these events.
    To explore these potential associations in a large population, McKeon and colleagues examined the electronic health record system of the Mayo Clinic's three locations (Rochester; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida) for the years 2003 to 2019.
    The study population included more than 32,000 patients who had been diagnosed with RA, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis, and who had been treated with any disease-modifying therapy. They identified 106 patients who developed CNS events, matching them with 106 controls who had the same autoimmune diseases but without CNS events.
    Two-thirds of the patients were women. Median age was 36 at the onset of the autoimmune disease for patients and 35 for controls, and median disease duration was 12 years for patients and 13 years for controls. The most common diagnosis was RA in 45%.
    Inflammatory demyelinating events developed in 56 patients, with most being MS, and inflammatory nondemyelinating events such as aseptic meningitis, CNS vasculitis, and idiopathic leptomeningitis were reported in 50.
    Among the 106 patients who developed CNS events, 60% had been exposed to any of the available TNF inhibitors, which were etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade), adalimumab (Humira), golimumab (Simponi), and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). Among the control group, 40% had received anti-TNF treatment.
    Among the patients who had demyelinating events, 70% had anti-TNF exposure compared with 50% of controls, while of those who had nondemyelinating events, 50% of patients were exposed compared with 28% of controls.
    When the analysis was stratified according to the type of CNS event, similar results were seen as in the primary analysis:
    • Inflammatory demyelinating CNS events: adjusted OR 3.09 (95% CI 1.19-8.04, P=0.02)
    • Inflammatory nondemyelinating CNS events: adjusted OR 2.97 (95% CI 1.15-7.65, P=0.02)
    Unlike the RA subgroup, a pooled analysis of patients with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis found no significant risk of inflammatory CNS events (OR 2.13, 95% CI 0.90-5.05, P=0.09).
    In 90% of patients who developed the neurologic symptoms, anti-TNF exposure took place within 1 year of the symptom onset, suggesting a temporal association, the researchers noted.
    "We hypothesized that TNF inhibitors may further dysregulate already aberrant immune responses, triggering inflammatory CNS events in patients with certain autoimmune diseases," they wrote.
    The TNF cytokine has multiple functions ranging from immune regulation to inhibition of tumor cells and defense against pathogens. "Proposed mechanisms for the paradoxical development of inflammatory CNS events in association with TNF inhibitor exposure include immune dysregulation from the inhibition of apoptosis of autoreactive T cells, which may then enter the CNS and cause demyelination," they explained.
    They also emphasized that the TNF inhibitors are highly effective therapies for these diseases, and the CNS events are uncommon, and also acknowledged that their study does not imply causality.
    "Further research is needed to explore whether this association indicates de novo inflammation or exacerbation of already aberrant inflammatory pathways," they concluded.
    In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey M. Gelfand, MD, and Jinoos Yazdany, MD, of the University of California San Francisco cautioned that "the effect size reported in the study should be interpreted with some caution," because the analysis did not adjust for severity of underlying disease. "It is plausible that individuals with more severe autoimmune diseases were both more likely to receive biological agents such as TNF inhibitors and more prone to develop neuroinflammatory events," the editorialists wrote.
    "The next steps should include population-based observational studies that control for disease severity," they wrote.
    Last Updated May 18, 2020
    Disclosures
    The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
    The authors disclosed relevant relationships with Biogen, Pfizer, Genentech, AbbVie, Sanofi-Genzyme, Alexion, Viela Bio, Union Chimique Belge, Astellas, Griffols, Autoimmune Encephalitis Alliance, Chugai/Roche, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Caladrius, Brainstorm Therapeutics, Roivant, Euroimmun, and Medimmune.