tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Cytotherapy
. 2022 Jan 31;S1465-3249(22)00012-3.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.12.001. Online ahead of print.
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for COVID-19: First iteration of a living systematic review and meta-analysis: MSCs and COVID-19
Aidan M Kirkham[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Madeline Monaghan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Adrian J M Bailey[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Risa Shorr[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Manoj M Lalu[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Dean A Fergusson[SUP] 5 [/SUP], David S Allan[SUP] 6 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy.
Methods and findings: All English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.22; P = .004; I[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality.
Conclusion: Use of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; acute respiratory distress syndrome; coronavirus disease 2019; exosomes; extracellular vesicles; mesenchymal stem cells; mesenchymal stromal cells; microvesicles; pneumonia; sepsis; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
. 2022 Jan 31;S1465-3249(22)00012-3.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.12.001. Online ahead of print.
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for COVID-19: First iteration of a living systematic review and meta-analysis: MSCs and COVID-19
Aidan M Kirkham[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Madeline Monaghan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Adrian J M Bailey[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Risa Shorr[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Manoj M Lalu[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Dean A Fergusson[SUP] 5 [/SUP], David S Allan[SUP] 6 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35219584
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.12.001
Abstract
Background: Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy.
Methods and findings: All English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.22; P = .004; I[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality.
Conclusion: Use of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; acute respiratory distress syndrome; coronavirus disease 2019; exosomes; extracellular vesicles; mesenchymal stem cells; mesenchymal stromal cells; microvesicles; pneumonia; sepsis; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.