METHODS: This is a dual-center randomized controlled trial (RCT). Sixty-nine patients aged 18 to 55 years with International Cartilage Repair Society grade 3 and 4 chondral lesions (size ≥3 cm2) of the knee joint were randomized equally into (1) a control group receiving intra-articular injections of HA plus physiotherapy and (2) an intervention group receiving arthroscopic subchondral drilling into chondral defects and postoperative intra-articular injections of PBSCs plus HA. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain subdomain measured at month 24. The secondary efficacy endpoints included all other KOOS subdomains, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) scores.
RESULTS: At 24 months, the mean IKDC scores for the control and intervention groups were 48.1 and 65.6, respectively (P < .0001). The mean for KOOS-pain subdomain scores were 59.0 (control) and 86.0 (intervention) with P < .0001. All other KOOS subdomain, NRS, and MOCART scores were statistically significant (P < .0001) at month 24. Moreover, for the intervention group, 70.8% of patients had IKDC and KOOS-pain subdomain scores exceeding the minimal clinically important difference values, indicating clinical significance. There were no notable adverse events that were unexpected and related to the study drug or procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic marrow stimulation with subchondral drilling into massive chondral defects of the knee joint followed by postoperative intra-articular injections of autologous PBSCs plus HA is safe and showed a significant improvement of clinical and radiologic scores compared with HA plus physiotherapy.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, RCT.
METHODS: Ten healthy subjects (aged 19-44 years) received 3 consecutive daily doses of filgrastim followed by an apheresis harvest of mononuclear cells on a fourth day. In a clean room, the apheresis product was prepared for cryopreservation and processed into 4 mL aliquots. Sterility and qualification testing were performed pre-processing and post-processing at multiple time points out to 2 years. Eight samples were shipped internationally to validate cell transport potential. One sample from all participants was cultured to test proliferative potential with colony forming unit (CFU) assay. Five samples, from 5 participants were tested for differentiation potential, including chondrogenic, adipogenic, osteogenic, endoderm, and ectoderm assays.
RESULTS: Fresh aliquots contained an average of 532.9 ± 166. × 106 total viable cells/4 mL vial and 2.1 ± 1.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/4 mL vial. After processing for cryopreservation, the average cell count decreased to 331.3 ± 79. × 106 total viable cells /4 mL vial and 1.5 ± 0.7 × 106 CD34+ cells/4 mL vial CD34+ cells. Preprocessing viability averaged 99% and postprocessing 88%. Viability remained constant after cryopreservation at all subsequent time points. All sterility testing was negative. All samples showed proliferative potential, with average CFU count 301.4 ± 63.9. All samples were pluripotent.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral blood stem cells are pluripotent and can be safely harvested/stored with filgrastim, apheresis, clean-room processing, and cryopreservation. These cells can be stored for 2 years and shipped without loss of viability.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This method represents an accessible stem cell therapy in development to augment cartilage repair.
CASE PRESENTATION: Five patients with OCDs of the knee joint are presented. The etiology includes osteochondritis dissecans, traumatic knee injuries, previously failed cartilage repair procedures involving microfractures and OATS (osteochondral allograft transfer systems). PBSC were harvested 1 week after surgery. Patients received intra-articular injections at week 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 after surgery. Then at 6 months after surgery, intra-articular injections were administered at a weekly interval for 3 consecutive weeks. These 3 weekly injections were repeated at 12, 18 and 24 months after surgery. Each patient received a total of 17 injections. Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores and MRI scans were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively at serial visits. At follow-ups of >5 years, the mean preoperative and postoperative IKDC scores were 47.2 and 80.7 respectively (p = 0.005). IKDC scores for all patients exceeded the minimal clinically important difference values of 8.3, indicating clinical significance. Serial MRI scans charted the repair and regeneration of the OCDs with evidence of bone growth filling-in the base of the defects, followed by reformation of the subchondral bone plate and regeneration of the overlying articular cartilage.
CONCLUSION: These case studies showed that this treatment is able to repair and regenerate both the osseous and articular cartilage components of knee OCDs.
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: We conducted a retrospective review of 70 patients with LPD (35 with lymphoma and 35 with multiple myeloma) who had undergone APBSCT between January 2008 and December 2016. Data obtained included disease type, treatment, and stem cell characteristics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for probabilities of neutrophil and platelet engraftment occurred and was compared by the log-rank test. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for the analysis of potential independent factors influencing engraftment. A p-value < 0.050 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Most patients were ethnic Malay, the median age at transplantation was 49.5 years. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment occurred in a median time of 18 (range 4-65) and 17 (range 6-66) days, respectively. The majority of patients showed engraftment with 65 (92.9%) and 63 (90.0%) showing neutrophil and platelet engraftment, respectively. We observed significant differences between neutrophil engraftment and patient's weight (< 60/≥ 60 kg), stage of disease at diagnosis, number of previous chemotherapy cycles (< 8/≥ 8), and pre-transplant radiotherapy. While for platelet engraftment, we found significant differences with gender, patient's weight (< 60/≥ 60 kg), pre-transplant radiotherapy, and CD34+ dosage (< 5.0/≥ 5.0 × 106/kg and < 7.0/≥ 7.0 × 106/kg). The stage of disease at diagnosis (p = 0.012) and pre-transplant radiotherapy (p = 0.025) were found to be independent factors for neutrophil engraftment whereas patient's weight (< 60/≥ 60 kg, p = 0.017), age at transplantation (< 50/≥ 50 years, p = 0.038), and CD34+ dosage (< 7.0/≥ 7.0 × 106/kg, p = 0.002) were found to be independent factors for platelet engraftment.
Conclusions: Patients with LPD who presented at an early stage and with no history of radiotherapy had faster neutrophil engraftment after APBSCT, while a younger age at transplantation with a higher dose of CD34+ cells may predict faster platelet engraftment. However, additional studies are necessary for better understanding of engraftment kinetics to improve the success of APBSCT.