The effects of intravenous infusion of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with subacute middle cerebral artery infarct: a phase 2 randomized controlled trial on safety, tolerability and efficacy.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are characterized by paracrine and immunomodulatory functions capable of changing the microenvironment of damaged brain tissue toward a more regenerative and less inflammatory milieu. The authors conducted a phase 2, single-center, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of intravenous autologous bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMMSCs) in patients with subacute middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarct. 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.

Cell-based therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is a fatal disease associated with rapidly progressive disability, for which no definitive treatment exists. Current treatment approaches largely focus on relieving symptoms to improve the quality of life of those affected. The therapeutic potential of cell-based therapies in ALS/MND has not been fully evaluated, given the paucity of high-quality clinical trials. Based on data from preclinical studies, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment for ALS/MND. This review was first published in 2015 when the first clinical trials of cell-based therapies were still in progress. We undertook this update to incorporate evidence now available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). 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.

Autologous cells derived from different sources and administered using different regimens for 'no-option' critical lower limb ischaemia patients.

BACKGROUND: Revascularisation is the gold standard therapy for patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI). In over 30% of patients who are not suitable for or have failed previous revascularisation therapy (the 'no-option' CLI patients), limb amputation is eventually unavoidable. Preliminary studies have reported encouraging outcomes with autologous cell-based therapy for the treatment of CLI in these 'no-option' patients. However, studies comparing the angiogenic potency and clinical effects of autologous cells derived from different sources have yielded limited data. Data regarding cell doses and routes of administration are also limited. 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.

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Cell-based Therapy in Patients with No-option Critical Limb Ischaemia: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Revascularisation therapy is the current gold standard of care for critical limb ischemia (CLI), although a significant proportion of patients with CLI either are not fit for or do not respond well to this procedure. Recently, novel angiogenic therapies such as the use of autologous cellbased therapy (CBT) have been examined, but the results of individual trials were inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To pool all published studies that compared the safety and efficacy of autologous CBT derived from different sources and phenotypes with non cell-based therapy (NCT) in CLI patients. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1974-2017. Sixteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving 775 patients receiving the following interventions: mobilised peripheral blood stem cells(m-PBSC), bone marrow mononuclear cells(BM-MNC), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells(BM-MSC), cultured BM-MNC(Ixmyelocel-T), cultured PB cells(VesCell) and CD34+ cells were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: High-quality evidence (QoE) showed similar all-cause mortality rates between CBT and NCT. AR reduction by approximately 60% were observed in patients receiving CBT compared to NCT (moderate QoE). CBT patients experienced improvement in ulcer healing, ABI, TcO2, pain free walking capacity and collateral vessel formation (moderate QoE). Low-to-moderate QoE showed that compared to NCT, intramuscular BM-MNC and m-PBSC may reduce amputation rate, rest pain, and improve ulcer healing and ankle-brachial pressure index, while intramuscular BM-MSC appeared to improve rest pain, ulcer healing and pain-free walking distance but not AR. Efficacy of other types of CBT could not be confirmed due to limited data. Cell harvesting and implantation appeared safe and well-tolerated with similar rates of adverse-events between groups. CONCLUSION: Implantation of autologous CBT may be an effective therapeutic strategy for no-option CLI patients. BM-MNC and m-PSBC appear more effective than NCT in improving AR and other limb perfusion parameters. BM-MSC may be beneficial in improving perfusion parameters but not AR, however, this observation needs to be confirmed in a larger population of patients. Generally, treatment using various sources and phenotypes of cell products appeared safe and well tolerated. Large-size RCTs with long follow-up are warranted to determine the superiority and durability of angiogenic potential of a particular CBT and the optimal treatment regimen for CLI.

Cell-based therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND) is a fatal disease associated with rapidly progressive disability, for which no definitive treatment as yet exists. Current treatment regimens largely focus on relieving symptoms to improve the quality of life of those affected. Based on data from preclinical studies, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment for ALS/MND. 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.

Comparison of reduced-intensity and myeloablative conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a meta-analysis.

Currently, the indications to perform reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (RIC-HCT) are based on data derived mainly from large registry and single-centre retrospective studies. Thus, at the present time, there is limited direct evidence supporting the current practice in selecting patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) for RIC versus myeloablative conditioning (MAC) transplants. To determine the relationship between dose intensity of conditioning regimen and survival outcomes after allografting in AML/ALL patients, we performed a meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials reported between 1990 and 2013 involving 15,258 adult patients that compare survival outcomes after RIC-HCT versus MAC-HCT. RIC-HCT resulted in comparable <2-year and 2-6 year overall survival (OS) rates post-transplantation even though the RIC-HCT recipients were older and had more active disease than MAC-HCT recipients. The 2-6 year progression-free survival (PFS), nonrelapse mortality, acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and chronic GvHD rates were reduced after RIC-HCT, but relapse rate was increased. Similar outcomes were observed regardless of disease type and status at transplantation. Odds ratio for all outcomes remained comparable with or without performing separate analyses for the year of HCT and for retrospective versus prospective studies. Among RIC-HCT recipients, survival rates were superior if patients were in CR at transplantation. Significant inter-study heterogeneity for aGvHD data and publication bias for PFS data were observed. This meta-analysis showed no OS benefit of MAC-HCT over RIC-HCT across the entire cohort of patients suggesting that RIC-HCT could be an effective therapeutic option for AML/ALL patients who are ineligible for MAC-HCT and CR status is preferred before RIC-HCT.