Systematic review of controlled clinical studies using umbilical cord blood for regenerative therapy: Identifying barriers to assessing efficacy.

Clinical use of umbilical cord blood (UCB) for novel indications in regenerative therapy continues to rise, however, whether new indications are proven is less clear. An updated systematic search of the literature, focusing only on controlled clinical studies, is needed to properly assess potential efficacy. After updating our systematic search to April 1, 2018 (PROSPERO protocol CRD42016040157), a total of 16 studies were identified that addressed the treatment of cerebral palsy (four studies), type 1 diabetes (three studies), and nine other novel potential indications where only a single controlled study was identified. In the four controlled studies of patients with cerebral palsy, three used allogeneic cells and reported greater improvement in motor-related scores at 1, 3 and 6 months compared with controls. The results were mixed for other scores at other time points, including additional measures of mental and motor function. One study of autologous UCB treatment reported an improvement in motor function scores at 12 months compared with controls. In the three controlled studies of type 1 diabetes, two studies used autologous cells whereas one used allogeneic cord blood cells to "educate" autologous lymphocytes. Taken together, there was no clear difference in HbA1c levels or daily insulin requirements between treated patients and controls. For the nine published reports with a single controlled study, eight used allogeneic UCB cells and seven infused mesenchymal stromal cells derived from UCB. All but one study reported benefit. Many other published reports that lack a control group were not included in our analysis. More controlled studies are needed that use similar approaches regarding cell source and outcome measures at similar time points. Pooled estimates of results from multiple studies will be essential as published studies remain modest in size. Patients should continue to be enrolled in clinical trials because there are no novel potential indications remain unproven.
(Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)