Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35204840›Full record

SynthesisBiomolecules2022

Are Cell-Based Therapies Safe and Effective in the Treatment of Neurodegenerative Diseases? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Jasper Van den Bos, Yousra El Ouaamari, Kristien Wouters, Nathalie Cools, Inez Wens

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biomolecules, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jasper Van den BosLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9293-8490
Yousra El OuaamariLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium.
Kristien WoutersClinical Trial Center (CTC), CRC Antwerp, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Drie Eikenstraat 655, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium.
Nathalie CoolsLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium.
Inez WensLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, significant advances have been made in the field of regenerative medicine. However, despite being of the utmost clinical urgency, there remains a paucity of therapeutic strategies for conditions with substantial neurodegeneration such as (progressive) multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), Parkinson's disease (PD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Different cell types, such as mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC), neuronal stem cells (NSC), olfactory ensheathing cells (OEC), neurons and a variety of others, already demonstrated safety and regenerative or neuroprotective properties in the central nervous system during the preclinical phase. As a result of these promising findings, in recent years, these necessary types of cell therapies have been intensively tested in clinical trials to establish whether these results could be confirmed in patients. However, extensive research is still needed regarding elucidating the exact mechanism of action, possible immune rejection, functionality and survival of the administered cells, dose, frequency and administration route. To summarize the current state of knowledge, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis. A total of 27,043 records were reviewed by two independent assessors and 71 records were included in the final quantitative analysis. These results show that the overall frequency of serious adverse events was low: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.08). In addition, several trials in MS and SCI reported efficacy data, demonstrating some promising results on clinical outcomes. All randomized controlled studies were at a low risk of bias due to appropriate blinding of the treatment, including assessors and patients. In conclusion, cell-based therapies in neurodegenerative disease are safe and feasible while showing promising clinical improvements. Nevertheless, given their high heterogeneity, the results require a cautious approach. We advocate for the harmonization of study protocols of trials investigating cell-based therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, adverse event reporting and investigation of clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisNeurodegenerative DiseasesSpinal Cord InjuriesCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHumanscell-based therapyneurodegenerative diseasesregeneration

Identifiers

PMID35204840
PMCPMC8869169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.