Efficacy and safety of adult stem cell exosome transplantation for T1DM patients and animals: a meta-analysis

Abstract Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) accounts for 30% to 40% of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) cases in Western countries. Although two-thirds of patients may be cured with combination chemotherapy, in the event of treatment failure and for those who are refractory to treatment, survival is usually measured in months. Several therapeutic modalities have been utilized for patients with relapsed or refractory disease, but among patients who are not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant, a comprehensive assessment of efficacy and safety is lacking. This systematic literature review (SLR) was designed to exhaustively collect and review information on the clinical efficacy and safety of the different interventions used in the treatment of refractory or relapsed DLBCL, and if possible to perform a meta-analysis. Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase) were searched for relevant studies published from 1997 to August 2, 2012. In addition, conference abstracts, bibliographic reference lists of included articles and recent reviews, and the Clinicaltrials.gov database were searched for phase 2, 3, or 4 studies displaying results, potentially unpublished in peer-reviewed journals. Main efficacy outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), complete response, partial response, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety endpoints focused on grade 3/4 toxicities and treatment discontinuation due to toxicity. Studies had to report on relapsed or refractory DLBCL after at least one standard treatment and patients who were not eligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy or stem cell transplant (autologous or allogeneic). Mixed type NHL studies were required to report DLBCL outcomes separately for inclusion. Results A total of 3,308 publications were identified in the first pass of a broad SLR on NHL; of these, 57 provided relevant data for DLBCL representing 54 unique studies. Of the 54 studies, there was 1 phase 3 study, 33 phase 2 studies, and 4 phase 1/2 studies (15 studies did not report the study phase and 1 was an observational study). Six studies were comparative (3 randomized trials; 3 nonrandomized trials) with two treatment arms; 48 studies were single arm. Of the 48 regimens evaluated, few regimens were represented more than once. Overall survival and PFS were often not reported or not reported separately for the patients with DLBCL in studies that enrolled patients with any of the multiple lymphoma histologies. Refractory and relapsed criteria were often not defined, and definitions were heterogeneous when available. The ORR from the few comparative studies ranged from 27% to 100%, with most estimates between 40% and 70%. PFS with low and high doses of obintuzumab was 2 months and 3 months, respectively in one study, and OS was 4 months with MEP and 7 months with C-MEP in another study. There was a common regimen in two of the randomized controlled trials, but the patient populations in these studies differed too greatly to allow a valid meta-analysis to be performed. In the single-arm studies, ORR ranged from 11% to 100%, with the estimates evenly distributed across that range. Progression-free survival was approximately 1 to 10 months. Reported median OS ranged from 1 to 13 months. Main safety concerns included thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. Conclusions There is a high unmet need for effective therapies for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are ineligible for stem cell transplant. Although numerous regimens have been evaluated in single-arm trials and a handful in comparative studies, there is no clearly superior regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, especially in third- and later lines of therapy. FA is supported by a Clinical Career Development Award from the Lymphoma Research Foundation Disclosures: Colosia: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Trask: Sanofi: Employment. Olivares: Sanofi: Employment. Khan: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Abbe: Sanofi: Employment. Police: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Njue: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Wang: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Sherrill: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Ruiz-Soto: Sanofi: Employment. Kaye: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Awan: Lymphoma Research Foundation (Career Development Award): Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Stem Cells International ◽

10.1155/2021/9149315 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Baocheng Xie ◽

Shichun Chen ◽

Yongxiang Xu ◽

Weichao Han ◽

Runkai Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Back Pain ◽

Clinical Efficacy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Low Back ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Disc Disease ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Vas Scores

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) can cause severe low back pain, which will have a serious negative impact on the ability to perform daily tasks or activities. For the past few years, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation has emerged as a promising strategy for the treatment of DDD. However, the clinical efficacy of MSC in the treatment of DDD still lacks clinical evidence and is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of MSC transplantation in patients with DDD. We searched major databases using terms from the database’s inception through March 2021. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to assess quality. The analysis showed that MSC therapy could decrease visual analog scale (VAS) scores ( SMD = − 0.50 , 95 % CI = − 0.68 ~ − 0.33 , P < 0.00001 ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores ( SMD = − 0.27 , 95 % CI = − 0.44 ~ − 0.09 , P = 0.003 ). The outcomes with subgroup analysis showed that MSC therapy could decrease VAS scores in 3 months ( P = 0.001 ), 6 months ( P = 0.01 ), 12 months ( P = 0.02 ), and ≥24 months ( P = 0.002 ) and ODI scores in ≥24 months ( P = 0.006 ). Pooled analysis showed that MSC therapy has a higher ratio of patients at most thresholds but particularly at the MIC (minimally important change) ( P = 0.0002 ) and CSC (clinically significant change) ( P = 0.0002 ) in VAS and MIC ( P = 0.0005 ) and CSC ( P = 0.001 ) pain responders in ODI. Adverse events (AE) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), back pain, arthralgia, and muscle spasms were not statistically significant between the two groups. However, our further statistical analysis showed that MSC therapy may induce AE of TEAE related to study treatment ( OR = 3.05 , 95 % CI = 1.11 ~ 8.40 , P = 0.03 ). In conclusion, this study pooled the main outcomes and showed that MSC therapy could significantly decrease VAS and ODI scores in patients with DDD. Distinctly, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest a novel therapeutic strategy for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and lumbar dysfunction by DDD.

Download Full-text