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.
BACKGROUND: Mononuclear cells contain progenitor cells including haematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells, endothelial progenitor cells and fibroblasts which facilitate wound healing through cytokines, growth factor secretions, cell-cell interactions and provision of extracellular matrix scaffolding. Clinical applications of autologous mononuclear cells therapy in wound healing in non-malignant patients with critical limb ischaemia have been reported with remarkable outcome.
METHODS: We report three patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy, who received autologous mononuclear cells implantation to treat non-healing wound after optimum conventional wound care. The sources of mononuclear cells (MNC) were from bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood (PB) and mobilised PB cells (mPB-MNC) using granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The cells were directly implanted into wound and below epidermis. Wound sizes and adverse effects from implantation were assessed at regular intervals.
RESULTS: All patients achieved wound healing within three months following autologous mononuclear cells implantation. No implantation adverse effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous mononuclear cells therapy is a feasible alternative to conventional wound care to promote complete healing in non-healing wounds compounded by morbid factors such as haematological malignancies, chemotherapy, diabetes mellitus (DM), infections and prolonged immobility.
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.
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.