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.
METHODS: Hepatotoxicity was induced in adult female Wistar rats using carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 ). Thirty-six rats were randomly divided into six groups with six rats in each group: Group 1 (normal control group), Group 2 (received only CCl 4 ), Group 3 (CCl 4 +low dose BM-MSCs), Group 4 (CCl 4 +high dose BM-MSCs), Group 5 (CCl 4 + silymarin), Group 6 (CCl 4 +silymarin+high dose BM-MSCs). Thirty days after the treatment, blood samples were collected for hepatocyte growth factor estimation. The rats were then killed, bone marrow was extracted for chromosomal aberration assay. Liver tissue was processed for evaluating the DNA fragmentation assay, histopathology, and scanning electron microscopy study.
RESULTS: Combination treatment of silymarin and high dose BM-MSCs significantly (P
METHODS: Retrospective study of 236 patients with CID from the region were enrolled from 2004 to 2022.
RESULTS: 236 patients were included with a majority being profound CID. Among patients with a family history of CID, the ages at onset and diagnosis, and the delay in diagnosis were lower compared to those with no family history of CID, but this did not affect time to transplant. HSCT was performed for 51.27% of the patients with median time from diagnosis to HSCT of 6.36 months. On multivariate analysis, patients who underwent early transplant had increased odds of having CD3 count ≤1000 cell/μl, diagnosed by screening or erythroderma.
CONCLUSION: There is a delay in diagnosis and treatment of CID in our region. Establishing newborn screening programs and HSCT units in our region are the urgent need.
METHODS: The medical records for NHL patients who had undergone HDT followed by AHSCT from October 1997 to November 2016 from two hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia were obtained from the medical record database and analysed retrospectively through statistical analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were retrospectively identified post-AHSCT, where the majority of whom had B cell lymphoma (53.4%). Majority of patients (88.5%) were in complete remission before AHSCT. The overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) at 3 years were 68.9% and 60.8%, respectively. The major cause of death was disease progression at 73.9%, while transplant-related mortality was 15.2%, with a median follow-up period of 179.5 weeks.
CONCLUSION: Our study illustrates the promising outcomes of HDT with AHSCT in NHL patients in a resource-limited country. We recommend larger studies to be conducted in the future with a longer duration of follow-up to validate our findings.
METHODS: Review of medical records of all cases of IEI who underwent HSCT between January 1993 and December 2018 at our centre. Diagnoses, complications, HSCT protocols and outcome data were studied.
RESULTS: There were 20 patients (19 boys) with a median age at diagnosis of 11 months (range: 2 months to 12 years). Eleven of 19 (58%) had malnutrition at presentation. Donor sources were variable: 13 (65%) matched sibling donor (MSD), 4 (20%) human leukocyte antigen-haploidentical donor (HD) and 3 (15%) matched unrelated donor (MUD). Conditioning regimens were physician-dependent and adapted to each patient's clinical status. Grades III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease occurred in two of three cases who received MUD grafts, 50% in those who received HD, and 8% in the MSD group. Transplant-related mortality at day +100 was 5%. With a median follow-up of 7.5 years, 18 (90%) patients are alive and free of infections.
CONCLUSION: Outcome of HSCT for IEI in our centre is comparable with international reports. HSCT results using HD and MUD grafts are also good despite challenges from acute graft-versus-host disease, providing a feasible alternative for patients without matched donors.