干细胞移植治疗脊髓损伤的现状和未来展望

E. Agosti, Marco Zeppieri, Andrea Pagnoni, M. Fontanella, Alessandro Fiorindi, T. Ius, P. Panciani
{"title":"干细胞移植治疗脊髓损伤的现状和未来展望","authors":"E. Agosti, Marco Zeppieri, Andrea Pagnoni, M. Fontanella, Alessandro Fiorindi, T. Ius, P. Panciani","doi":"10.5500/wjt.v14.i1.89674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Previous assessments of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries (SCI) have encountered challenges and constraints. Current research primarily emphasizes safety in early-phase clinical trials, while systematic reviews prioritize effectiveness, often overlooking safety and translational feasibility. This situation prompts inquiries regarding the readiness for clinical adoption.\n AIM\n To offer an up-to-date systematic literature review of clinical trial results concerning stem cell therapy for SCI.\n METHODS\n A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases [PubMed, Embase, Reference Citation Analysis (RCA), and Cochrane Library] up to October 14, 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to \"spinal cord\", \"injury\", \"clinical trials\", \"stem cells\", \"functional outcomes\", and \"adverse events\". Studies included in this review consisted of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the use of stem cell therapies for the treatment of SCI.\n RESULTS\n In a comprehensive review of 66 studies on stem cell therapies for SCI, 496 papers were initially identified, with 237 chosen for full-text analysis. Among them, 236 were deemed eligible after excluding 170 for various reasons. These studies encompassed 1086 patients with varying SCI levels, with cervical injuries being the most common (42.2%). Bone marrow stem cells were the predominant stem cell type used (71.1%), with various administration methods. Follow-up durations averaged around 84.4 months. The 32.7% of patients showed functional improvement from American spinal injury association Impairment Scale (AIS) A to B, 40.8% from AIS A to C, 5.3% from AIS A to D, and 2.1% from AIS B to C. Sensory improvements were observed in 30.9% of patients. A relatively small number of adverse events were recorded, including fever (15.1%), headaches (4.3%), muscle tension (3.1%), and dizziness (2.6%), highlighting the potential for SCI recovery with stem cell therapy.\n CONCLUSION\n In the realm of SCI treatment, stem cell-based therapies show promise, but clinical trials reveal potential adverse events and limitations, underscoring the need for meticulous optimization of transplantation conditions and parameters, caution against swift clinical implementation, a deeper understanding of SCI pathophysiology, and addressing ethical, tumorigenicity, immunogenicity, and immunotoxicity concerns before gradual and careful adoption in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":506536,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Transplantation","volume":"31 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current status and future perspectives on stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury\",\"authors\":\"E. Agosti, Marco Zeppieri, Andrea Pagnoni, M. Fontanella, Alessandro Fiorindi, T. Ius, P. Panciani\",\"doi\":\"10.5500/wjt.v14.i1.89674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\n Previous assessments of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries (SCI) have encountered challenges and constraints. Current research primarily emphasizes safety in early-phase clinical trials, while systematic reviews prioritize effectiveness, often overlooking safety and translational feasibility. This situation prompts inquiries regarding the readiness for clinical adoption.\\n AIM\\n To offer an up-to-date systematic literature review of clinical trial results concerning stem cell therapy for SCI.\\n METHODS\\n A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases [PubMed, Embase, Reference Citation Analysis (RCA), and Cochrane Library] up to October 14, 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to \\\"spinal cord\\\", \\\"injury\\\", \\\"clinical trials\\\", \\\"stem cells\\\", \\\"functional outcomes\\\", and \\\"adverse events\\\". Studies included in this review consisted of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the use of stem cell therapies for the treatment of SCI.\\n RESULTS\\n In a comprehensive review of 66 studies on stem cell therapies for SCI, 496 papers were initially identified, with 237 chosen for full-text analysis. Among them, 236 were deemed eligible after excluding 170 for various reasons. These studies encompassed 1086 patients with varying SCI levels, with cervical injuries being the most common (42.2%). Bone marrow stem cells were the predominant stem cell type used (71.1%), with various administration methods. Follow-up durations averaged around 84.4 months. The 32.7% of patients showed functional improvement from American spinal injury association Impairment Scale (AIS) A to B, 40.8% from AIS A to C, 5.3% from AIS A to D, and 2.1% from AIS B to C. Sensory improvements were observed in 30.9% of patients. A relatively small number of adverse events were recorded, including fever (15.1%), headaches (4.3%), muscle tension (3.1%), and dizziness (2.6%), highlighting the potential for SCI recovery with stem cell therapy.\\n CONCLUSION\\n In the realm of SCI treatment, stem cell-based therapies show promise, but clinical trials reveal potential adverse events and limitations, underscoring the need for meticulous optimization of transplantation conditions and parameters, caution against swift clinical implementation, a deeper understanding of SCI pathophysiology, and addressing ethical, tumorigenicity, immunogenicity, and immunotoxicity concerns before gradual and careful adoption in clinical practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":506536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"31 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v14.i1.89674\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v14.i1.89674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景以往对脊髓损伤(SCI)干细胞疗法的评估遇到了挑战和限制。目前的研究主要强调早期临床试验的安全性,而系统性审查则优先考虑有效性,往往忽视安全性和转化可行性。这种情况促使人们对临床应用的准备情况进行调查。目的 提供有关干细胞治疗 SCI 临床试验结果的最新系统性文献综述。方法 对主要医学数据库[PubMed、Embase、参考引文分析(RCA)和Cochrane图书馆]进行系统检索,检索期截至2023年10月14日。检索策略使用了与 "脊髓"、"损伤"、"临床试验"、"干细胞"、"功能结果 "和 "不良事件 "相关的医学主题词表(MeSH)和关键词。本综述所包含的研究包括随机对照试验和非随机对照试验,报告了干细胞疗法用于治疗 SCI 的情况。结果 在对66项有关干细胞疗法治疗SCI的研究进行的全面综述中,初步确定了496篇论文,并选择了237篇进行全文分析。其中,236篇因各种原因排除了170篇,被认为符合条件。这些研究涵盖了1086名不同SCI程度的患者,其中颈椎损伤最为常见(42.2%)。骨髓干细胞是最主要的干细胞类型(71.1%),使用方法多种多样。随访时间平均约为84.4个月。32.7%的患者功能得到改善,从美国脊柱损伤协会损伤量表(AIS)A到B,40.8%从AIS A到C,5.3%从AIS A到D,2.1%从AIS B到C。记录到的不良事件相对较少,包括发烧(15.1%)、头痛(4.3%)、肌肉紧张(3.1%)和头晕(2.6%)。结论 在SCI治疗领域,以干细胞为基础的疗法显示出前景,但临床试验揭示了潜在的不良事件和局限性,强调需要细致优化移植条件和参数,谨慎对待快速临床实施,加深对SCI病理生理学的理解,解决伦理、肿瘤致病性、免疫原性和免疫毒性等问题,才能逐步谨慎地应用于临床实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Current status and future perspectives on stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury
BACKGROUND Previous assessments of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries (SCI) have encountered challenges and constraints. Current research primarily emphasizes safety in early-phase clinical trials, while systematic reviews prioritize effectiveness, often overlooking safety and translational feasibility. This situation prompts inquiries regarding the readiness for clinical adoption. AIM To offer an up-to-date systematic literature review of clinical trial results concerning stem cell therapy for SCI. METHODS A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases [PubMed, Embase, Reference Citation Analysis (RCA), and Cochrane Library] up to October 14, 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to "spinal cord", "injury", "clinical trials", "stem cells", "functional outcomes", and "adverse events". Studies included in this review consisted of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the use of stem cell therapies for the treatment of SCI. RESULTS In a comprehensive review of 66 studies on stem cell therapies for SCI, 496 papers were initially identified, with 237 chosen for full-text analysis. Among them, 236 were deemed eligible after excluding 170 for various reasons. These studies encompassed 1086 patients with varying SCI levels, with cervical injuries being the most common (42.2%). Bone marrow stem cells were the predominant stem cell type used (71.1%), with various administration methods. Follow-up durations averaged around 84.4 months. The 32.7% of patients showed functional improvement from American spinal injury association Impairment Scale (AIS) A to B, 40.8% from AIS A to C, 5.3% from AIS A to D, and 2.1% from AIS B to C. Sensory improvements were observed in 30.9% of patients. A relatively small number of adverse events were recorded, including fever (15.1%), headaches (4.3%), muscle tension (3.1%), and dizziness (2.6%), highlighting the potential for SCI recovery with stem cell therapy. CONCLUSION In the realm of SCI treatment, stem cell-based therapies show promise, but clinical trials reveal potential adverse events and limitations, underscoring the need for meticulous optimization of transplantation conditions and parameters, caution against swift clinical implementation, a deeper understanding of SCI pathophysiology, and addressing ethical, tumorigenicity, immunogenicity, and immunotoxicity concerns before gradual and careful adoption in clinical practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Critical considerations for the management of acute abdomen in transplant patients Frequency of and reasons behind non-listing in adult patients referred for liver transplantation: Results from a retrospective study Impact of payment source, referral site, and place of residence on outcomes after allogeneic transplantation in Mexico Incidence, risk factors and clinical outcome of multidrug-resistant organisms after heart transplantation Whole-eye transplantation: Current challenges and future perspectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1