Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Serious adverse events of cell therapy for respiratory diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhao R., Su Z., Wu J., Ji HL.

Meta-analysis on Systemic / IV, published in Oncotarget (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Oncotarget (2017)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
28430622
PMCID
PMC5444761
DOI
10.18632/oncotarget.15426
Citations
23

Abstract (original English)

Background Cell therapy holds the most promising for acute and chronic deleterious respiratory diseases. However, the safety and tolerance for lung disorders are controversy. Methods We undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of all 23 clinical studies of cell therapy. The outcomes were odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), Peto OR, relative risk, and mean difference of serious adverse events. Results 342 systemic infusions and 57 bronchial instillations (204 recipients) of cells were analyzed for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary arterial hypertension, silicosis, sarcoidosis, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The frequency of death in adults from any causes was 71 and 177 per 1,000 for cell therapy and controls, respectively, with an OR of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.03, 3.76) and RD of -0.22 (95% CI: -0.53, 0.09). No significant difference was found for ARDS and COPD. The frequency of deaths and non-fatal serious adverse events of 17 open studies were similar to those of randomized controlled trials. Moreover, serious adverse events of allogenic cells were greater than autologous preparations, as shown by frequency, OR and RD. Conclusions We conclude that either infusion or instillation of mesenchymal stem stromal or progenitor cells are well t

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 evidence
Mesenchymal Stem CellsHumansRespiratory Tract DiseasesTreatment OutcomeOdds RatioClinical Trials as TopicCell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

Browse all related research

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

Related research