Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of freshly cultured versus cryopreserved mesenchymal stem cells in animal models of inflammation: A pre-clinical systematic review.
Dave, Chintan; Mei, Shirley H J; McRae, Andrea; Hum, Christine; Sullivan, Katrina J; Champagne, Josee; Ramsay, Tim; McIntyre, Lauralyn.
Afiliação
  • Dave C; Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Canada.
  • Mei SHJ; Regenerative Medicine Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
  • McRae A; Regenerative Medicine Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Hum C; Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Sullivan KJ; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Champagne J; Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Ramsay T; Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
  • McIntyre L; Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Elife ; 112022 07 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35838024
Background: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent cells that demonstrate therapeutic potential for the treatment of acute and chronic inflammatory-mediated conditions. Although controversial, some studies suggest that MSCs may lose their functionality with cryopreservation which could render them non-efficacious. Hence, we conducted a systematic review of comparative pre-clinical models of inflammation to determine if there are differences in in vivo measures of pre-clinical efficacy (primary outcomes) and in vitro potency (secondary outcomes) between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs. Methods: A systematic search on OvidMEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Web of Science (until January 13, 2022) was conducted. The primary outcome included measures of in vivo pre-clinical efficacy; secondary outcomes included measures of in vitro MSC potency. Risk of bias was assessed by the SYRCLE 'Risk of Bias' assessment tool for pre-clinical studies. Results: Eighteen studies were included. A total of 257 in vivo pre-clinical efficacy experiments represented 101 distinct outcome measures. Of these outcomes, 2.3% (6/257) were significantly different at the 0.05 level or less; 2 favoured freshly cultured and 4 favoured cryopreserved MSCs. A total of 68 in vitro experiments represented 32 different potency measures; 13% (9/68) of the experiments were significantly different at the 0.05 level or less, with seven experiments favouring freshly cultured MSC and two favouring cryopreserved MSCs. Conclusions: The majority of preclinical primary in vivo efficacy and secondary in vitro potency outcomes were not significantly different (p<0.05) between freshly cultured and cryopreserved MSCs. Our systematic summary of the current evidence base may provide MSC basic and clinical research scientists additional rationale for considering a cryopreserved MSC product in their pre-clinical studies and clinical trials as well as help identify research gaps and guide future related research. Funding: Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article