Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Mesenchymal stromal stem cell therapy in advanced interstitial lung disease - Anaphylaxis and short-term follow-up

Thangakunam B., Christopher DJ., Mathews V., Srivastava A.

Laboratory Study, published in Lung India (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Lung India (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
26628765
PMCID
PMC4587005
DOI
10.4103/0970-2113.164156
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

There are limited treatment options for advanced interstitial lung disease (ILD). We describe a patient of ILD treated with mesenchymal stromal stem cell infusion. The index patient had end-stage ILD due to a combination of insults including treatment with radiotherapy and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor Erlotinib. He was oxygen-dependent and this was hampering his quality of life. He tolerated the first infusion stem cells without any problem. During the second infusion he developed anaphylactic shock, which was appropriately managed. At 6-months follow-up he had no improvement in oxygenation, pulmonary function or CT scan parameters. In view of anaphylaxis, further infusions of MSC were withheld. A longer follow-up may reveal long-term benefits or side effects, if any. However the occurrence of anaphylaxis is of concern suggesting that further trials should be conducted with intensive monitoring.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.