Cell therapy with intravascular administration of mesenchymal stromal cells continues to appear safe: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Thompson M., Mei SHJ., Wolfe D., Champagne J., Fergusson D., Stewart DJ.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 2696, published in EClinicalMedicine (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- EClinicalMedicine (2020)
- Reported sample size
- 2696
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31989101
- PMCID
- PMC6970160
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.100249
- Citations
- 210
Abstract (original English)
Background Characterization of the mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) safety profile is important as this novel therapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials for various inflammatory conditions. Due to an increase in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2012-2019, we performed an updated systematic review to further characterize the MSC safety profile. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science (to May 2018) were searched. RCTs that compared intravascular delivery of MSCs to controls in adult populations were included. Pre-specified adverse events were grouped according to: (1) immediate, (2) infection, (3) thrombotic/embolic, and (4) longer-term events (mortality, malignancy). Adverse events were pooled and meta-analyzed by fitting inverse-variance binary random effects models. Primary and secondary clinical efficacy endpoints were summarized descriptively. Findings 7473 citations were reviewed and 55 studies met inclusion criteria ( n = 2696 patients). MSCs as compared to controls were associated with an increased risk of fever (Relative Risk (RR) = 2·48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1·27-4·86; I 2 = 0%), but not non-fever acute infusional toxicity, infection, thrombotic/embolic events, death, or malignancy (RR = 1·16, 0·99, 1·14, 0·78, 0·93; 95% CI = 0·70-1·91, 0·81-1·21, 0·67-1·95, 0·65-0·94, 0·60-1·45; I 2
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.