A Scoping Review of Registered Clinical Trials of Cellular Therapy for COVID-19 and a Framework for Accelerated Synthesis of Trial Evidence-FAST Evidence
Liao G., Zheng K., Lalu MM., Fergusson DA., Allan DS.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 1129, published in Transfus Med Rev (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
- Transfus Med Rev (2020)
- Reported sample size
- 1129
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 32684483
- PMCID
- PMC7320662
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.tmrv.2020.06.001
- Citations
- 10
Abstract (original English)
The urgent need for safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 has fueled the launch of many parallel complex studies of cellular therapies with small to modest enrolment projections. By pooling data from multiple studies that are similar, we can increase the ability to achieve sufficient power to determine effectiveness more quickly through meta-analysis. A scoping review of registered clinical trials using cell-based interventions for COVID-19 was conducted to identify candidate studies for meta-analysis that could support an accelerated regulatory review. ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched April 23, 2020. Trials were included if they utilized cell or cell-derived products to treat or prevent COVID-19. Fifty-four registered cellular therapy trials were identified and included for analysis. Studies of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs; 41 studies; 1129 subjects projected to receive cells) and natural killer (NK) cells (5 studies; 135 projected to received cells) were observed most commonly. A subset of studies are controlled (34 studies, or 63%), including 27 studies of MSCs and 3 of NK cells. While heterogeneity in study design exists, the cumulative projected enrolment of patients from similar studies appears sufficient to allow the detection of meaningful differences in clinically important outcomes such as mortality, admi
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.