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: Autologous HSCT patients aged 18 years old and above were recruited from Hospital Ampang, Malaysia, between April 2019 to December 2020. Mucositis assessments were conducted daily, whilst blood and saliva were collected prior to conditioning regimen, on Day 0, Day+7 and 6-month. Baseline and inflammatory predictors in a repeated time measurement of moderate-severe mucositis were assessed by multiple logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, respectively.
RESULTS: Of the 142 patients analyzed, oral mucositis and diarrhea (representing GI mucositis) were reported as 68.3% and 95.8%, respectively. Predictive factors for moderate-severe oral mucositis were BEAM or busulphan-based regimens (odds ratio (OR)=9.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.16-72.9, p-value (p) = 0.005) and vomiting (OR=4.6, 95% CI 1.68-12.3, p = 0.004). Predictive factors for moderate-severe GI mucositis were BEAM or busulphan-based regimens (OR=3.9, 95% CI 1.05-14.5, p = 0.023), female sex (OR = 3.3, 95% CI 1.43-7.44, p = 0.004) and body mass index (OR=1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, p = 0.010). Cytokines analyses were performed in 96 patients. Saliva and plasma interleukin-6 (OR=1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.004, p < 0.001 and OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.015, p = 0.029), and plasma tumor necrosis factor-alpha (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.99, p = 0.019) were predictive of moderate-severe oral mucositis in a time-dependent model.
CONCLUSION: This study provides real-world evidence and insights into patient- and treatment-related factors affecting oral and GI mucositis in HSCT.
RESULTS: In vitro, cultured MDSC spontaneously differentiated into insulin-expressing islet-like cell clusters as revealed using MDSC from transgenic mice expressing GFP or mCherry under the control of an insulin promoter. Differentiated clusters of beta-like cells co-expressed insulin with the transcription factors Pdx1, Nkx2.2, Nkx6.1, and MafA, and secreted significant levels of insulin in response to glucose challenges. In vivo, undifferentiated MDSC injected into streptozotocin (STZ)-treated mice engrafted within 48 h specifically to damaged pancreatic islets and were shown to differentiate and express insulin 10-12 days after injection. In addition, injection of MDSC into hyperglycemic diabetic mice reduced their blood glucose levels for 2-4 weeks.
CONCLUSION: These data show that MDSC are capable of differentiating into mature pancreatic beta islet-like cells, not only upon culture in vitro, but also in vivo after systemic injection in STZ-induced diabetic mouse models. Being nonteratogenic, MDSC can be used directly by systemic injection, and this potential reveals a promising alternative avenue in stem cell-based treatment of beta-cell deficiencies.
METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were injected with CCl4 for 8 weeks to induce irreversible liver fibrosis. Ex-vivo expanded, pooled human MSCs obtained from BM and WJ were intravenously administered into rats with liver fibrosis at a dose of 10 × 106 cells/animal. Sham control and vehicle-treated animals served as negative and disease controls, respectively. The animals were sacrificed at 30 and 70 days after cell transplantation and hepatic-hydroxyproline content, histopathological, and immunohistochemical analyses were performed.
RESULTS: BM-MSCs treatment showed a marked reduction in liver fibrosis as determined by Masson's trichrome and Sirius red staining as compared to those treated with the vehicle. Furthermore, hepatic-hydroxyproline content and percentage collagen proportionate area were found to be significantly lower in the BM-MSCs-treated group. In contrast, WJ-MSCs treatment showed less reduction of fibrosis at both time points. Immunohistochemical analysis of BM-MSCs-treated liver samples showed a reduction in α-SMA+ myofibroblasts and increased number of EpCAM+ hepatic progenitor cells, along with Ki-67+ and human matrix metalloprotease-1+ (MMP-1+) cells as compared to WJ-MSCs-treated rat livers.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that BM-MSCs are more effective than WJ-MSCs in treating liver fibrosis in a CCl4-induced model in rats. The superior therapeutic activity of BM-MSCs may be attributed to their expression of certain MMPs and angiogenic factors.
METHODS: MSCs and Oh-LAAO were isolated and characterized by standard methodologies. The effects of the experimental therapies were evaluated in C57/BL6 mice. The animal study groups consisted of full-thickness uninfected and MRSA-infected wound models which received Oh-LAAO, MSCs, or both. Oh-LAAO was administered directly on the wound while MSCs were delivered via intradermal injections. The animals were housed individually with wound measurements taken on days 0, 3, and 7. Histological analyses and bacterial enumeration were performed on wound biopsies to determine the efficacy of each treatment.
RESULTS: Immunophenotyping and differentiation assays conducted on isolated MSCs indicated expression of standard cell surface markers and plasticity which corresponds to published data. Characterization of Oh-LAAO by proteomics, enzymatic, and antibacterial assays confirmed the identity, purity, and functionality of the enzyme prior to use in our subsequent studies. Individual treatments with MSCs and Oh-LAAO in the infected model resulted in reduction of MRSA load by one order of magnitude to the approximate range of 6 log10 colony-forming units (CFU) compared to untreated controls (7.3 log10 CFU). Similar wound healing and improvements in histological parameters were observed between the two groups. Co-administration of MSCs and Oh-LAAO reduced bacterial burden by approximately two orders of magnitude to 5.1 log10 CFU. Wound closure measurements and histology analysis of biopsies obtained from the combinational therapy group indicated significant enhancement in the wound healing process compared to all other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that co-administration of MSCs and Oh-LAAO into a mouse model of MRSA-infected wounds exhibited a synergistic antibacterial effect which significantly reduced the bacterial count and accelerated the wound healing process.
METHODS: In this study, we assessed the potential anti-inflammatory effects of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell (hUC-MSC)-derived EVs in a rat model of COPD. EVs were isolated from hUC-MSCs and characterized by the transmission electron microscope, western blotting, and nanoparticle tracking analysis. As a model of COPD, male Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to cigarette smoke for up to 12 weeks, followed by transplantation of hUC-MSCs or application of hUC-MSC-derived EVs. Lung tissue was subjected to histological analysis using haematoxylin and eosin staining, Alcian blue-periodic acid-Schiff (AB-PAS) staining, and immunofluorescence staining. Gene expression in the lung tissue was assessed using microarray analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 7 version 7.0 (GraphPad Software, USA). Student's t test was used to compare between 2 groups. Comparison among more than 2 groups was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data presented as median ± standard deviation (SD).
RESULTS: Both transplantation of hUC-MSCs and application of EVs resulted in a reduction of peribronchial and perivascular inflammation, alveolar septal thickening associated with mononuclear inflammation, and a decreased number of goblet cells. Moreover, hUC-MSCs and EVs ameliorated the loss of alveolar septa in the emphysematous lung of COPD rats and reduced the levels of NF-κB subunit p65 in the tissue. Subsequent microarray analysis revealed that both hUC-MSCs and EVs significantly regulate multiple pathways known to be associated with COPD.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we show that hUC-MSC-derived EVs effectively ameliorate by COPD-induced inflammation. Thus, EVs could serve as a new cell-free-based therapy for the treatment of COPD.