Search

An important stage in the development of any new therapeutic agent is establishment of the optimal dosage and route of administration. This can be particularly challenging when the treatment is a biologic agent that might exert its therapeutic effects via complex or poorly understood mechanisms. Multiple preclinical and clinical studies have shown paradoxical results, with inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between the cell dose and clinical benefit. Such phenomena can, at least in part, be attributed to variations in cell dosing or concentration and the route of administration (ROA). Although clinical trials of cell-based therapy for cardiovascular disease began more than a decade ago, specification of the optimal dosage and ROA has not been established. The present review summarizes what has been learned regarding the optimal cell dosage and ROA from preclinical and clinical studies of stem cell therapy for heart disease and offers a perspective on future directions. Significance: Preclinical and clinical studies on cell-based therapy for cardiovascular disease have shown inconsistent results, in part because of variations in study-specific dosages and/or routes of administration (ROA). Future preclinical studies and smaller clinical trials implementing cell-dose and ROA comparisons are warranted before proceeding to pivotal trials., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Introduction: Accumulating evidence supports the use of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs), particularly bone marrow derived, as a safe and promising biologic therapy for promoting tissue repair and regeneration in various chronic diseases and disorders. Despite growing evidence that MSCs are potent anti-inflammatory mediators that can provide substantial benefits in acute organ injury, there are limited clinical trials utilizing MSCs in acute care settings, such as in the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU).Objective: This article reviews the current state of MSC-based therapeutics and further explores the untapped potential role to treat various acute, life-threating injuries in the ED and ICU.Discussion: All clinical trials using MSCs in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and acute kidney injury (AKI) demonstrated safety. While some also demonstrate clinical efficacy, efficacy data is inconsistent, with some studies limited by sample size, cell integrity and different dosages, necessitating further studies.Conclusion: MSCs are potentially promising novel biologic therapeutics for clinical application in AMI, ARDS, sepsis, AKI and COVID-19 that have demonstrated safety in all clinical trials. More rigorous clinical trials are necessary and warranted to determine the efficacy of MSCs as a novel therapeutic in an acute setting, such as the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The electrophysiologic impact of cell‐based therapy on the injured myocardium remains highly controversial. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of studies comparing arrhythmia burden following transendocardial stem cell therapy vs placebo in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (CIHD). Methods and Results: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. No restriction of stem cell type was specified. The outcomes included sustained supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), sudden cardiac death (SCD), and resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). Effect sizes were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Poisson regression was used to account for zero‐events data. Twelve randomized trials that included 736 patients (384 in the cell therapy group and 352 in the placebo group) were analyzed. Six different cell types were used. Follow‐up ranged from 6 to 12 months. There was a significant decrease in risk of SCD in the cell therapy group, (FE OR, 0.19 [0.04, 0.93]; P = .04). In subgroup analysis, there was a significantly lower risk of SCD or resuscitated SCA in the cell therapy group limited to studies that did not use skeletal myoblasts, (FE OR, 0.23 [0.06, 0.83]; P = .03). There was no significant difference in the incidence of sustained VA between groups (FE OR, 0.91 [0.47, 1.77]; P = .8), even after stratifying by cell type. There was no difference in supraventricular arrhythmias between groups. Conclusion: Nonskeletal myoblast transendocardial cell therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of SCD or resuscitated SCA compared to control, with no proarrhythmic effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although pharmacological and interventional advances have reduced the morbidity and mortality of ischemic heart disease, there is an ongoing need for novel therapeutic strategies that prevent or reverse progressive ventricular remodeling following myocardial infarction, the process that forms the substrate for ventricular failure. The development of cell-based therapy as a strategy to repair or regenerate injured tissue offers extraordinary promise for a powerful anti-remodeling therapy. In this regard, the field of cell therapy has made major advancements in the past decade. Accumulating data from preclinical studies have provided novel insights into stem cell engraftment, differentiation, and interactions with host cellular elements, as well as the effectiveness of various methods of cell delivery and accuracy of diverse imaging modalities to assess therapeutic efficacy. These findings have in turn guided rationally designed translational clinical investigations. Collectively, there is a growing understanding of the parameters that underlie successful cell-based approaches for improving heart structure and function in ischemic and other cardiomyopathies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]