OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: On 31 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowed, provided that they were given to each group equally.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs involving 112 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study compared autologous bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only), while the other study compared combined intramuscular and intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF) to placebo. The latter study was reported as an abstract and provided no numerical data. Both studies were funded by biotechnology companies. The only study that contributed to the outcome data in the review involved 64 participants, comparing BM-MSC plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only). It reported outcomes after four to six months. It had a low risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of performance bias and attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was low for all major efficacy outcomes, with imprecision as the main downgrading factor, because the range of plausible estimates, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), encompassed a range that would likely result in different clinical decisions. Functional impairment, expressed as the mean change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to six months after cell injection was slightly reduced (better) in the BM-MSC group compared to the control group (mean difference (MD) 3.38, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.54; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). ALSFRS-R has a range from 48 (normal) to 0 (maximally impaired); a change of 4 or more points is considered clinically important. The trial did not report outcomes at 12 months. There was no clear difference between the BM-MSC and the no treatment group in change in respiratory function (per cent predicted forced vital capacity; FVC%; MD -0.53, 95% CI -5.37 to 4.31; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence); overall survival at six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); risk of total adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure muscle strength.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a lack of high-certainty evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND. Uncertainties remain as to whether this mode of therapy is capable of restoring muscle function, slowing disease progression, and improving survival in people with ALS/MND. Although one RCT provided low-certainty evidence that BM-MSC may slightly reduce functional impairment measured on the ALSFRS-R after four to six months, this was a small phase II trial that cannot be used to establish efficacy. We need large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up to establish the efficacy and safety of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research are to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose and method of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no additional treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: On 21 June 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials' registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowable, provided that they were given to each group equally.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS: No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. We identified four ongoing trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND.We need large, prospective RCTs to establish the efficacy of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research should be to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.
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.
METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that investigate the effect and safety of GO for the treatment of patients with AML. We will search for any eligible articles from selected electronic databases. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for study selection and reporting. We will use The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Meta-Analysis as guidance to select eligible studies. All data will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There was no patient involved in this study, therefore no ethical consideration is needed. The findings of this study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and any relevant conference presentation.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019123286.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 691 allogeneic PBSCT patients between 2010-2017 in two centers.
RESULTS: The prevalence of cutaneous GVHD was 31.4% (217/691). No associations were detected with race, age or gender of donor and recipients. Cutaneous GVHD was associated with host cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity (p<0.01), conditioning (p<0.01), GVHD prophylaxis (p=0.046) and survival (p<0.01). Majority developed the acute form (58.1%;126/217). Biopsies in 20.7% (45/217) showed 55.6% positivity for GVHD. Overall, involvement was non-severe. A majority demonstrated complete response (CR) to first-line corticosteroids (70.0%;152/217). Secondline therapies (extracorporeal phototherapy (ECP), psolaren ultraviolet A (PUVA), mycophenolate, tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukins inhibitors, or CD20 monoclonal antibodies) were required in 65/217, with 38.5% CR. Second-line therapy was associated with gender (p=0.042), extra-cutaneous GVHD (p=0.021), treatment outcomes (p=0.026) and survival (p=0.048). Mortality in cutaneous GVHD was 24.0% with severe sepsis being the leading cause at Day 100 (7.8%) and 5-years (7.8%), and relapsed disease at 2-years (32.7%). In steroid refractoriness, severe GVHD caused 30.8% mortality. In cutaneous GVHD, survival at Day 100 was 95.4%; 80.2% at 2-years and 73.1% at 5-years. The median survival in cutaneous GVHD was significantly shorter at 55 months, compared to those without GVHD at 69 months (p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: Cutaneous involvement is the commonest clinical manifestation of GVHD. A larger national study is warranted to further analyse severity and outcome of multiorgan GVHD, and factors associated with steroid refractoriness.
METHODS: Patients aged 30-75 years who had severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score of 10-35) involving the MCA territory were recruited within 2 months of stroke onset. Using permuted block randomization, patients were assigned to receive 2 million BMMSCs per kilogram of body weight (treatment group) or standard medical care (control group). The primary outcomes were the NIHSS, modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Barthel Index (BI) and total infarct volume on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 12 months. All outcome assessments were performed by blinded assessors. Per protocol, analyses were performed for between-group comparisons.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients were recruited. Nine were assigned to the treatment group, and eight were controls. All patients were severely disabled following their MCA infarct (median mRS = 4.0 [4.0-5.0], BI = 5.0 [5.0-25.0], NIHSS = 16.0 [11.5-21.0]). The baseline infarct volume on the MRI was larger in the treatment group (median, 71.7 [30.5-101.7] mL versus 26.7 [12.9-75.3] mL, P = 0.10). There were no between-group differences in median NIHSS score (7.0 versus 6.0, P = 0.96), mRS (2.0 versus 3.0, P = 0.38) or BI (95.0 versus 67.5, P = 0.33) at 12 months. At 12 months, there was significant improvement in absolute change in median infarct volume, but not in total infarct volume, from baseline in the treatment group (P = 0.027). No treatment-related adverse effects occurred in the BMMSC group.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous infusion of BMMSCs in patients with subacute MCA infarct was safe and well tolerated. Although there was no neurological recovery or functional outcome improvement at 12 months, there was improvement in absolute change in median infarct volume in the treatment group. Larger, well-designed studies are warranted to confirm this and the efficacy of BMMSCs in ischemic stroke.