Search

The rapidly growing field of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) basic and translational research requires standardization of terminology and functional characterization. The International Standards Organization's (ISO) Technical Committee (TC) on Biotechnology, working with extensive input from the International Society for Cells and Gene Therapy (ISCT), has recently published ISO standardization documents that are focused on biobanking of MSCs from two tissue sources, Wharton's Jelly, MSC(WJ) and Bone Marrow, MSC(M)), for research and development purposes and development. This manuscript explains the path towards the consensus on the following two documents: the Technical Standard ISO/TS 22859 for MSC(WJ) and the full ISO Standard 24651 for MSC(M) biobanking. The ISO standardization documents are aligned with ISCT's MSC committee position and recommendations on nomenclature because there was active input and incorporation of ISCT MSC committee recommendations in the development of these standards. The ISO standardization documents contain both requirements and recommendations for functional characterization of MSC(WJ) and MSC(M) using a matrix of assays. Importantly, the ISO standardization documents have a carefully defined scope and are meant for research use of culture expanded MSC(WJ) and MSC(M). The ISO standardization documents can be updated in a revision process and will be systematically reviewed after 3-5 years as scientific insights grow. They represent international consensus on MSC identity, definition, and characterization; are rigorous in detailing multivariate characterization of MSCs and represent an evolving-but-important first step in standardization of MSC biobanking and characterization for research use and development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Aims: Evidence regarding the extent that mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been limited by marked inter-study heterogeneity, inconsistent product characterization and appreciable risk of bias (RoB). Given the evolution of treatment options and trajectory of the pandemic, an updated analysis of high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed for a timely and conclusive understanding of the effectiveness of MSCs., Methods: A systematic literature search through March 30, 2022, identified all English language, full-text randomized controlled trials examining the use of MSCs in the treatment of COVID-19., Results: Eight studies were identified (316 patients, 165 administered MSCs and 151 controls). Controls evolved significantly over time with a broad range of comparison treatments. All studies reported mortality at study endpoint. Random effects meta-analysis revealed that MSCs decreased relative risk of death (risk ratio, 0.63, 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.94, P = 0.02, I 2  = 14%) with no significant difference in absolute risk of death. MSCs decreased length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels and increased odds of clinical improvement at study endpoint compared with controls. Rates of adverse events and severe adverse events were similar between MSC and control groups. Only two (25%) studies reported all four International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy criteria for MSC characterization. Included studies had low (n = 7) or some (n = 1) concerns regarding RoB., Conclusions: MSCs may reduce risk of death in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 and improve secondary clinical outcomes. Variable outcome reporting, inconsistent product characterization and variable control group treatments remain barriers to higher-quality evidence and may constrain clinical usage. A master protocol is proposed and appears necessary for accelerated translation of higher-quality evidence for future applications of MSC therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest DSA is a paid medical consultant with Canadian Blood Services., (Copyright © 2022 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19; however, early evidence is based on few studies with marked interstudy heterogeneity. The second iteration of our living systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates a framework needed for synthesizing evidence from high-quality studies to accelerate consideration for approval., Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted on November 15, 2021, to identify all English-language, full-text, and controlled clinical studies examining MSCs to treat COVID-19 (PROSPERO: CRD42021225431)., Findings: Eleven studies were identified (403 patients with severe and/or critical COVID-19, including 207 given MSCs and 196 controls). All 11 studies reported mortality and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased relative risk of death at study endpoint (RR: 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]) and RR of death at 28 days after treatment (0.19 [95% CI], 0.05-0.78) compared to controls. MSCs also decreased length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD: -3.97 days [95% CI, -6.09 to -1.85], n = 5 studies) and increased oxygenation levels at study endpoint compared to controls (MD: 105.62 mmHg O2 [95% CI, 73.9-137.3,], n = 3 studies). Only 2 of 11 studies reported on all International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) criteria for MSC characterization. Included randomized controlled trials were found to have some concerns (n = 2) to low (n = 4) risk of bias (RoB), while all non-randomized studies were found to have moderate (n = 5) RoB., Interpretation: Our updated living systematic review concludes that MSCs can likely reduce mortality in patients with severe or critical COVID-19. A master protocol based on our Faster Approval framework appears necessary to facilitate the more accelerated accumulation of high-quality evidence that would reduce RoB, improve consistency in product characterization, and standardize outcome reporting., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy., Methods and Findings: All English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I 2  = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.22; P = .004; I 2  = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality., Conclusion: Use of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects., Competing Interests: Competing interests DA is a paid medical consultant with Canadian Blood Services. The authors have no other competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2022 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are widely used in preclinical and clinical research. Despite minimal criteria to define MSCs provided by the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), concerns have been raised about inconsistent descriptions of cell products used. To address the question "How are MSCs currently defined and characterized?" we conducted a scoping review on original MSC preclinical and clinical studies published over a 3-month period. Selected studies identified from a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase were categorized as follows: Clinical, Animal, Biology, or Biomaterial studies. Data were extracted from a randomly selected subsample of studies. We extracted information, including epidemiological characteristics of studies, study design, ISCT criteria, and MSC characterization and culture condition. A total of 1053 articles were included and among them, 318 articles were analyzed. Overall, 18% of the articles explicitly referred to the ISCT minimal criteria for MSC. MSC characteristics and culture conditions were inconstantly reported (eg, viability assay reported in only 18% of the articles). Only 20% of documents reported at least 1 functional assay. Clinical studies showed inconsistent completeness in reporting relevant information on the MSC characterization and cell manufacturing processes. These results suggest that further development and implementation of a consensus definition of MSCs and reporting guidelines are needed to enhance rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in MSC research., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background and Objective: Mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) are a promising treatment for bone injuries, although studies remain preclinical. A systematic review and meta-analysis can assess the efficacy of MSC-EVs and identify treatment aspects associated with enhanced bone repair., Methods: English language, preclinical, controlled, in vivo studies identified in our systematic search (up to May 8, 2020) examining the use of MSC-EVs in bone healing were included. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. Aggregate Data Meta-Analysis was performed to determine the effect of MSC-EVs on Bone Volume/Total Volume (BV/TV) and New Bone Formation (NBF)., Results: Thirteen studies were included. Twelve reported either BV/TV or NBF and were included in meta-analysis. ROB was unclear in all studies. Overall, MSC-EVs displayed benefit in terms of bone healing for both BV/TV (22.2% mean difference (MD); 95% CI: 15.8-28.5%, p < 0.001) and NBF (26.1% MD; 10.3-41.8%, p = 0.001) versus controls. Substantial heterogeneity, however, was observed between studies. MSC-EVs were reported to activate multiple signaling pathways including mTOR/AKT, AMPK and BMP2. Subgroup analysis indicated no significant difference in the improvement of BV/TV when using modified EVs isolated after gene transfection, preconditioning (p = 0.61), or using EVs in combination with a tissue scaffold and/or hydrogel versus other delivery methods (p = 0.20)., Conclusion: Use of MSC-EVs to promote healing of bone injury appears promising, however, heterogeneity between studies and the potential for reporting bias limits confidence in the extent of benefit. Reducing bias between studies and addressing aspects of potential reporting bias should augment confidence in future meta-analyses and propel the field towards clinical studies. Forest Plot analysis assessing the percentage change in bone volume (BV) / total volume (TV) in the presence (experimental) or absence (control) of MSC-EVs., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Mesenchymal stromal cell derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) have been implicated in the regulation of tumor growth. Studies remain preclinical with effects ranging from inhibition of tumor growth to cancer progression. A systematic review and meta-analysis is needed to clarify the effect of MSC-EVs on tumor growth to facilitate potential translation to clinical trials., Methods: A systematic search of the literature (MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS databases to June 1, 2019) identified all pre-clinical controlled studies investigating the effect of MSC-EVs on tumor growth. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Potential risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. A random effects meta-analysis of reduction in tumor weight/volume (primary outcome) was performed., Results: We identified 29 articles and 22 reported data on tumor responses that were included for meta-analysis. Studies were associated with unclear risk of bias in a large proportion of domains in accordance with the SYRCLE tool for determining risk of bias in preclinical studies. A high risk of bias was not identified in any study. MSC-EVs had a mixed response on tumor progression with some studies reporting inhibition of tumor growth and others reporting tumor progression. Overall, MSC-EVs exerted a non-significant reduction in tumor growth compared to controls (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.80, 95 % CI -1.64 to 0.03, p = 0.06, I 2  = 87 %). Some studies reported increased tumor growth which aligned with their stated hypothesis and some interrogated mechanisms in cancer biology. EVs isolated from MSCs that overexpressed anti-tumor RNAs were associated with significant tumor reduction in meta-analysis (SMD - 2.40, 95 % CI -3.36 to -1.44, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity between studies was observed and included aspects of study design such as enrichment of MSC-EVs with specific anti-tumor molecules, tissue source of MSCs, method of EV isolation, characterization of MSCs and EVs, dosage and administration schedules, and tissue type and source of tumor cells studied., Conclusions: MSC-EVs are associated with mixed effects on tumor growth in animal models of cancer. In studies where anti-tumor RNAs are packaged in EVs, a significant reduction in tumor growth was observed. Reducing heterogeneity in study design may accelerate our understanding of the potential effects of MSC-EVs on cancer. [274 words] Forest plot of MSC-EV effect on tumor growth accordinggenetic modification of EVs in animal studies identified from a systematicreview of the literature. All cohorts from studies with multiple interventiongroups are presented separately with control groups divided equally among thegroups. M, modified; H, hypoxia., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Extracellular vesicles from mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC-EVs) have shown promise in wound healing. Their use in diabetic wounds specifically, however, remains pre-clinical and their efficacy remains uncertain less clear. A systematic review of preclinical studies is needed to determine the efficacy of MSC-EVs in the treatment of diabetic wounds to accelerate the clinical translation of this cell-based therapy., Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched (to June 23, 2020). All English-language, full-text, controlled interventional studies comparing MSC-EVs to placebo or a "no treatment" arm in animal models of diabetic wounds were included. Study outcomes, including wound closure (primary outcome), scar width, blood vessel number and density, and re-epithelialisation were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the SYRCLE tool for pre-clinical animal studies., Results: A total of 313 unique records were identified from our search, with 10 full text articles satisfying inclusion criteria (n = 136 animals). The administration of MSC-EVs improved closure of diabetic wounds compared to controls with a large observed effect (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) 5.48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.55-8.13). Healing was further enhanced using MSC-EVs enriched in non-coding RNAs or microRNAs compared to controls (SMD 9.89, 95%CI 7.32-12.46). Other outcomes, such as blood vessel density and number, scar width, and re-epithelialisation were improved with the administration of MSC-EVs, with a large effect. ROB across studies was unclear., Conclusion: MSC-EVs, particularly following enrichment for specific RNAs, are a promising treatment for diabetic wounds in pre-clinical studies and translation to the clinical domain appears warranted., Registration: PROSPERO #CRD42020199327 [248]. Forest plot demonstrating increased wound closure rates of diabetic wounds receiving genetically modified MSC-EVs that were enriched for specific RNAs. DFO = deferoxamine. Control groups were inactive (no treatment or saline) except for 3 studies which used hydrogels without MSC-EVs as control (Li M 2016; Shi 2017; Tao 2016)., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Despite being more than two decades of research, mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) treatments are still struggling to cross the translational gap. Two key issues that likely contribute to these failures are (1) the lack of clear definition for MSC and (2) poor quality of reporting in MSC clinical studies. To address these issues, we propose a modified Delphi study to establish a consensus definition for MSC and reporting guidelines for clinical trials of MSC therapy., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a three-round international modified Delphi survey. Findings from a recent scoping review examining how MSCs are defined and reported in preclinical and clinical studies were used to draft the initial survey for round 1 of our Delphi. Participants will include a 'core group' of individuals as well as researchers whose work was captured in our scoping review. The core group will include stakeholders from different research fields including developmental biology, translational science, research methods, regulatory practices, scholarly journal editing and industry. The first two survey rounds will be online, and the final round will take place in person. Each participant will be asked to rate their agreement on potential MSC definition characteristics and reporting items using a Likert scale. After each round, we will analyse the data to determine which items have reached consensus for inclusion/exclusion, and then develop a revised questionnaire for any new items, or items that did not reach consensus., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethical approval from the Ottawa Health Research Network Research Ethics Board. To support the dissemination of our findings, we will use an evidence-based 'integrated knowledge translation' approach to engage knowledge users from the inception of the research. This will allow us to develop a tailored end-of-project knowledge translation plan to support and ensure dissemination and implementation of the Delphi results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Preclinical studies suggest mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) reduce inflammation and improve organ function in lung diseases; however, an objective analysis of all available data is needed prior to translation. Using rigorous meta-research methods, we determined the effectiveness of MSC-EVs for preclinical respiratory diseases and identified experimental conditions that may further refine this therapy. A systematic search of MEDLINE/Embase identified 1167 records. After screening, 52 articles were included for data extraction and evaluated for risk of bias and quality of reporting in study design. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted for acute lung injury (ALI; N = 23), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; N = 8) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; N = 7). Subgroup analyses identified EV methods/characteristics that may be associated with improved efficacy. Data is presented as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For ALI, MSC-EVs markedly reduced lung injury (SMD -4.33, CI -5.73 to -2.92), vascular permeability (SMD -2.43, CI -3.05 to -1.82), and mortality (RR 0.39, CI 0.22 to 0.68). Small EVs were more consistently effective than large EVs whereas no differences were observed between tissue sources, immunocompatibility or isolation techniques. For BPD, alveolarization was improved by MSC-EVs (SMD -1.45, CI -2.08 to -0.82) with small EVs more consistently beneficial then small/large EVs. In PAH, right ventricular systolic pressure (SMD -4.16, CI -5.68 to -2.64) and hypertrophy (SMD -2.80, CI -3.68 to -1.91) were significantly attenuated by EVs. In BPD and PAH, EVs isolated by ultracentrifugation demonstrated therapeutic benefit whereas tangential flow filtration (N = 2) displayed minimal efficacy. Lastly, risk of bias and quality of reporting for experimental design were consistently unclear across all studies. Our findings demonstrate clear potential of MSC-EVs to be developed as therapy for acute and chronic lung diseases. However, greater transparency in research design and direct comparisons of isolation technique and EV subtypes are needed to generate robust evidence to guide clinical translation. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020145334., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Extracellular Vesicles published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles.)

Background: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have significant immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities, mediated partly by conditioned media or through secreted extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can cause mild to life-threatening illness due to activated immune responses that may be dampened by MSCs or their secretome. Many clinical studies of MSCs have been launched since the beginning of the global pandemic, however, few have been completed and most lack power to assess efficacy. Repeated systematic searches and meta-analyses are needed to understand, in real time, the extent of potential benefit in different patient populations as the evidence emerges., Methods: This living systematic review will be maintained to provide up-to-date information as the pandemic evolves. A systematic literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed. All clinical studies (e.g., randomized, pseudorandomized and non-randomized controlled trials, uncontrolled trials, and case series) employing MSCs or their secretome as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19 will be included. Patients must have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Study screening and data extraction will be performed in duplicate. Information concerning interventions, patient populations, methods of MSC isolation and characterization, primary and secondary clinical and/or laboratory outcomes, and adverse events will be extracted. Key clinical outcomes will be pooled through random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of MSCs and their secreted products for COVID-19., Discussion: Our systematic review and subsequent updates will inform the scientific, medical, and health policy communities as the pandemic evolves to guide decisions on the appropriate use of MSC-related products to treat COVID-19., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD 42021225431., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Treating and preventing graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) remains a significant challenge. The use of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) appears promising and a systematic review of preclinical studies is needed to accelerate the design of translational studies., Methods: We identified 4 eligible studies from a systematic review performed on December 1, 2018. In brief, eligible studies included the treatment or prevention of GVHD in animal models and the use of MSC-EVs. Study design and outcome data were extracted and reporting was evaluated using the SYRCLE tool to identify potential bias., Results: Two studies assessed the efficacy of MSC-EVs in treatment of GVHD and 2 studies address prevention. Mice treated with MSC-EVs showed improved median survival, GVHD clinical scores and histology scores as compared to untreated mice with GVHD. Prophylactic treatment with MSC-EVs attenuated GVHD severity and improved median survival as compared to no treatment or saline., Conclusion: Our systematic review provides important insight regarding the potential of MSC-EVs to treat or prevent GVHD. Although few studies were identified, improved survival and attenuated histologic findings of GVHD were observed in mice after MSC-EV administration for the treatment and prevention of GVHD. Dosing of EVs and route of administration remain inconsistent, however, and scalability of EV isolation for clinical studies remains a challenge. Standardized outcome reporting is needed to pool results for metanalysis. Graphical abstract.

Mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) can reduce inflammation, promote healing, and improve organ function, thereby providing a potential "cell-free" therapy. Prior to clinical translation, it is critical to synthesize existing evidence on preclinical methods and efficacy. To address these issues, we used gold standard systematic review methodology to consolidate information from all published animal studies investigating MSC-EVs as an intervention. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase identified 206 studies. Data were extracted in duplicate for methodology, experimental design, interventional traits, modifications, and outcomes. MSC-EVs were used to treat a variety of diseases and demonstrated benefits in 97% of studies. Adverse effects were reported in only three studies, two demonstrating tumor growth. A quarter of articles modified EVs to enhance efficacy, with 72% leading to markedly improved outcomes as compared to unmodified EVs. However, several key methodological concerns were evident. Only 60% of studies used nomenclature consistent with the size definitions of EVs. Ultracentrifugation (70%) and isolation kits (23%) were the most common isolation techniques with noted differences in yield and purity. EVs were inconsistently dosed by protein (68%) or particle concentration (16%). Two-thirds of studies administered xenogeneic EVs, suggesting immunocompatibility. Less than 25% of studies assessed EV biodistribution. Approaches for determining size, protein markers, and morphology were highly heterogeneous, with only 12 and 4 studies meeting the MISEV 2014 and 2018 recommendations, respectively. Knowledge gaps identified from this systematic review highlight important opportunities to improve preclinical design and methodology in the rapidly growing field of EV therapeutics.

Background: Over the past decade, mesenchymal stromal cells have been increasingly investigated for their therapeutic potential in several different illnesses. However, cell therapy can be limited by potentially serious adverse events including cell embolus formation and tumorigenesis. Importantly, the protective effects of mesenchymal stromal cells are largely mediated by paracrine mechanisms including release of extracellular vesicles. This systematic review intends to synthesize the current knowledge of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles as a therapeutic option for preclinical models of disease, inflammation, or injury., Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS databases will be conducted. Interventional preclinical in vivo studies using extracellular vesicles derived from any tissue source of mesenchymal stromal cells will be included. Studies will be screened by abstract, and full-text by two independent reviewers. Eligible studies will undergo data extraction with subcategorization into domains based on disease. Methods utilized for extracellular vesicle characterization and isolation will be collected, as well as information on interventional traits, such as tissue source of mesenchymal stromal cells, dosage regimen, and vesicle modifications. Reported outcomes will be collected to determine which diseases studied may be impacted most from treatment with mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles., Discussion: This systematic review will summarize preclinical studies investigating the therapeutic efficacy of both small and large extracellular vesicles derived by mesenchymal stromal cells. Extracellular vesicles represent a possibility to harness the benefits of mesenchymal stromal cells with added benefits of reduced manufacturing costs and an improved safety profile. Hence, there has been an exponential increase in interest for developing this cell-free therapy with hundreds of preclinical studies published to date. However, a vast amount of heterogeneity between groups relates to methods of extracellular vesicle isolation, characterization, and study design. This review will capture this heterogeneity and identify the most commonly used and optimal approaches to evaluate mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicle treatment. A meta-analysis of outcomes within each disease domain will help elucidate which fields of research demonstrate promise for developing extracellular vesicles as a novel cell-free therapy. Summarizing this robust information on extracellular vesicles as an intervention can provide guidance for designing preclinical studies with hopes of future clinical translation.

Background: Despite advances in treatment, acute myocardial infarction (MI) is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients with extensive damage and scar formation. Based on some promising preclinical studies, there is interest in the use of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to promote cardiac repair after acute MI. However, there is a need for a systematic review of this evidence to summarize the efficacy and safety of MSCs in preclinical models of MI. This will better inform the translation of MSC therapy for acute MI and guide the design of a future clinical trial., Methods/design: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS Previews will be conducted. We will identify comparative preclinical studies (randomized and non-randomized) of myocardial infarction that include animals given MSC therapy versus a vehicle/placebo. The primary outcome will be left ventricular ejection fraction. Secondary and tertiary outcomes will include death, infarct size, measures of cardiac function, biochemical outcomes, and MSC retention and differentiation. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Subgroup analyses will be performed to measure how various sources of preclinical study heterogeneity affect the direction and magnitude of the primary outcome. We will meta-analyze data using inverse variance random effects modeling., Discussion: This systematic review of preclinical evidence will provide a summary of the efficacy and safety of MSCs in animal models of MI. The results will help determine whether sufficient evidence exists to conduct a clinical trial in humans and inform its design.

Evaluation of preclinical evidence prior to initiating early-phase clinical studies has typically been performed by selecting individual studies in a non-systematic process that may introduce bias. Thus, in preparation for a first-in-human trial of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for septic shock, we applied systematic review methodology to evaluate all published preclinical evidence. We identified 20 controlled comparison experiments (980 animals from 18 publications) of in vivo sepsis models. Meta-analysis demonstrated that MSC treatment of preclinical sepsis significantly reduced mortality over a range of experimental conditions (odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.40, latest timepoint reported for each study). Risk of bias was unclear as few studies described elements such as randomization and no studies included an appropriately calculated sample size. Moreover, the presence of publication bias resulted in a ~30% overestimate of effect and threats to validity limit the strength of our conclusions. This novel prospective application of systematic review methodology serves as a template to evaluate preclinical evidence prior to initiating first-in-human clinical studies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Background: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs, "adult stem cells") have been widely used experimentally in a variety of clinical contexts. There is interest in using these cells in critical illness, however, the safety profile of these cells is not well known. We thus conducted a systematic review of clinical trials that examined the use MSCs to evaluate their safety., Methods and Findings: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to June 2011), were searched. Prospective clinical trials that used intravascular delivery of MSCs (intravenously or intra-arterially) in adult populations or mixed adult and pediatric populations were identified. Studies using differentiated MSCs or additional cell types were excluded. The primary outcome adverse events were grouped according to immediate events (acute infusional toxicity, fever), organ system complications, infection, and longer term adverse events (death, malignancy). 2347 citations were reviewed and 36 studies met inclusion criteria. A total of 1012 participants with clinical conditions of ischemic stroke, Crohn's disease, cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, graft versus host disease, and healthy volunteers were included. Eight studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) and enrolled 321 participants. Meta-analysis of the RCTs did not detect an association between acute infusional toxicity, organ system complications, infection, death or malignancy. There was a significant association between MSCs and transient fever., Conclusions: Based on the current clinical trials, MSC therapy appears safe. However, further larger scale controlled clinical trials with rigorous reporting of adverse events are required to further define the safety profile of MSCs.

Incomplete reporting of study methods and results has become a focal point for failures in the reproducibility and translation of findings from preclinical research. Here we demonstrate that incomplete reporting of preclinical research is not limited to a few elements of research design, but rather is a broader problem that extends to the reporting of the methods and results. We evaluated 47 preclinical research studies from a systematic review of acute lung injury that use mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as a treatment. We operationalized the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) reporting guidelines for pre-clinical studies into 109 discrete reporting sub-items and extracted 5,123 data elements. Overall, studies reported less than half (47%) of all sub-items (median 51 items; range 37–64). Across all studies, the Methods Section reported less than half (45%) and the Results Section reported less than a third (29%). There was no association between journal impact factor and completeness of reporting, which suggests that incomplete reporting of preclinical research occurs across all journals regardless of their perceived prestige. Incomplete reporting of methods and results will impede attempts to replicate research findings and maximize the value of preclinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disease (15 cases per million) that is characterized by widespread loss of the pulmonary microcirculation and elevated pulmonary vascular resistance leading to pathological right ventricular remodeling and ultimately right heart failure. Regenerative cell therapies (i.e., therapies involving cells with stem or progenitor-like properties) could potentially restore the effective lung microcirculation and provide a curative therapy for PAH. Preclinical evidence suggests that regenerative cell therapy using endothelial progenitor cells or mesenchymal stem cells may be beneficial in the treatment of PAH. These findings have led to the completion of a small number of human clinical trials, albeit with modest effect compared to animal studies. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapies in preclinical models of PAH as well as assess study quality to inform future clinical studies. Methods: We will include preclinical studies of PAH in which a regenerative cell type was administered and outcomes compared to a disease control. The primary outcome will be pulmonary hemodynamics as assessed by measurement of right ventricular systolic pressure and/or mean pulmonary arterial pressure. Secondary outcomes will include mortality, survival, right ventricular remodeling, pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, cardiac index, pulmonary acceleration time, tricuspid annular systolic excursion, and right ventricular wall thickness. Electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. Search results will be screened independently in duplicate. Data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random effects models. Risk of bias will be assessed using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool, and individual study reporting will be assessed according to an itemized checklist based on the Animal Research: Reporting of In vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Discussion: This systematic review will examine the efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy in preclinical models of PAH. As well, the literature will be assessed for study quality and risk of bias. The results will guide the design of future clinical trials and preclinical animal studies. Systematic review registration: CAMARADES (http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/SyRF/Protocols.htm). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss a study which analyzed the role of mesenchymal stromal cells (MCS) in critical illness, by Chien and colleagues, published within the issue. The study demonstrated the beneficial effects of cytokines or cellular mediators, as shown in MSC therapy in acute lung injury or septic shock. The authors also highlight concerns over MSC therapy for critical illness.