Observational studyChinese medical journal2025
Safety and efficacy of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells in COVID-19 patients: A real-world observation.
Observational study in Chinese medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cell (UC-MSC) treatment on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have been preliminarily characterized. However, real-world data on the safety and efficacy of intravenous transfusions of MSCs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients at the convalescent stage remain to be reported.
methodsThis was a single-arm, multicenter, real-word study in which a contemporaneous external control was included as the control group. Besides, severe and critical COVID-19 patients were considered together as the severe group, given the small number of critical patients. For a total of 110 patients, 21 moderate patients and 31 severe patients were enrolled in the MSC treatment group, while 26 moderate patients and 32 severe patients were enrolled in the control group. All patients received standard treatment. The MSC treatment patients additionally received intravenous infusions of MSCs at a dose of 4 × 10 7 cells on days 0, 3, and 6, respectively. The clinical outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), lung lesion proportion on chest computed tomography, pulmonary function, 6-min walking distance (6-MWD), clinical symptoms, and laboratory parameters, were measured on days 28, 90, 180, 270, and 360 during the follow-up visits.
resultsIn patients with moderate COVID-19, MSC treatment improved pulmonary function parameters, including forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and maximum forced vital capacity (VCmax) on days 28 (FEV1, 2.75 [2.35, 3.23] vs . 2.11 [1.96, 2.35], P = 0.008; VCmax, 2.92 [2.55, 3.60] vs . 2.47 [2.18, 2.68], P = 0.041), 90 (FEV1, 2.93 [2.63, 3.27] vs . 2.38 [2.24, 2.63], P = 0.017; VCmax, 3.52 [3.02, 3.80] vs . 2.59 [2.45, 3.15], P = 0.017), and 360 (FEV1, 2.91 [2.75, 3.18] vs . 2.30 [2.16, 2.70], P = 0.019; VCmax,3.61 [3.35, 3.97] vs . 2.69 [2.56, 3.23], P = 0.036) compared with the controls. In addition, in severe patients, MSC treatment notably reduced the proportion of ground-glass lesions in the whole lung volume on day 90 ( P = 0.045) compared with the controls. No difference in the incidence of AEs was observed between the two groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found in the 6-MWD, D-dimer levels, or interleukin-6 concentrations between the MSC and control groups.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate the safety and potential of MSC treatment for improved lung lesions and pulmonary function in convalescent COVID-19 patients. However, comprehensive and long-term studies are required to confirm the efficacy of MSC treatment.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031430.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.