Dataset Information

Concise Review: A Safety Assessment of Adipose-Derived Cell Therapy in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Reported Adverse Events.

ABSTRACT: The popularity of adipose-derived cell therapy has increased over the last decade, and the number of studies published annually is growing. However, concerns regarding safety in the setting of previous malignancy or the use of allogeneic cells have been raised. We therefore aimed to systematically review all clinical studies using adipose-derived cell therapy to identify reported adverse events with a special focus on risk of thromboembolic, immunological, and oncological safety concerns. Our systematic search resulted in 70 included studies involving more than 1,400 patients that were treated with adipose-derived cell therapy. Safety assessment method was not described in 32 of the included studies. For studies involving systemic or cardiac administration, one case of pulmonary thromboembolism and cases of both myocardial and cerebral infarctions were described. In the setting of allogeneic cell therapy studies, where the production of specific antibodies toward donor cells was examined, it was noted that 19%-34% of patients develop antibodies, but the consequence of this is unknown. With regard to oncological safety, only one case of breast cancer recurrence was identified out of 121 patients. Adipose-derived cell therapy has so far shown a favorable safety profile, but safety assessment description has, in general, been of poor quality, and only adverse events that are looked for will be found. We encourage future studies to maintain a strong focus on the safety profile of cell therapy, so its safeness can be confirmed. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:1786-1794.

SUBMITTER: Toyserkani NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5689766 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Concise Review: A Safety Assessment of Adipose-Derived Cell Therapy in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Reported Adverse Events.

Toyserkani Navid Mohamadpour NM Jørgensen Mads Gustaf MG Tabatabaeifar Siavosh S Jensen Charlotte Harken CH Sheikh Søren Paludan SP Sørensen Jens Ahm JA

Stem cells translational medicine 20170719 9

The popularity of adipose-derived cell therapy has increased over the last decade, and the number of studies published annually is growing. However, concerns regarding safety in the setting of previous malignancy or the use of allogeneic cells have been raised. We therefore aimed to systematically review all clinical studies using adipose-derived cell therapy to identify reported adverse events with a special focus on risk of thromboembolic, immunological, and oncological safety concerns. Our sy ...[more]

PMID: 28722289

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPromoting medication adherence is a recognized challenge for prescribers. In this study, we examine whether lower medication adherence is associated with adverse safety events in individuals with decreased estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs).Study designCross-sectional baseline analysis of prospective cohort.Setting & participantsBaseline analysis of the Safe Kidney Care (SKC) Cohort Study, a prospective study of individuals with eGFRs<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) intended to assess the incidence of disease-specific safety events. Kidney transplant recipients were excluded.PredictorSelf-reported medication adherence based on responses to 3 questions ascertaining degree of medication regimen adherence.OutcomesAdverse safety events were self-reported at baseline (class I events), such as hypoglycemia or fall thought to be related to a medication, or detected incidentally during the baseline visit (class II events), for example, hypotension or hyperkalemia. Potential drug-related problems (DRPs) were determined by analyzing participants' medications with respect to dosing guidelines based on their screening eGFRs at the time of medication reporting.MeasurementsRelationship between medication adherence and disease-specific patient safety events.ResultsOf 293 SKC participants, 154 (53%) were classified as having lower medication adherence. After multivariable adjustment, lower medication adherence was significantly associated with a class I or II safety event (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41) and potential DRPs (PR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02-1.63). Lower medication adherence was also significantly associated with multiple (≥2) class I events (PR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18-2.49), multiple class I or II events (PR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76), and multiple potential DRPs (PR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.08-2.69) compared with those with higher medication adherence.LimitationsUse of self-reported medication adherence rather than pharmacy records. Clinical relevance of detected safety events is unclear.ConclusionsLower medication adherence is associated with adverse safety events in individuals with eGFRs<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2).

Project description:BackgroundNaltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 to 250 mg. The aim of this review was to extensively evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events and adverse events in randomised controlled trials of naltrexone compared to placebo.MethodsA systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to May 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials longer than 4 weeks published after 1 January 2001 of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition or age group was included, excluding only studies in opioid or ex-opioid users owing to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses harms checklist throughout. Numerical data were independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed in R using random effects models throughout.ResultsEighty-nine randomised controlled trials with 11,194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders (n = 38), various psychiatric disorders (n = 13), impulse control disorders (n = 9), other addictions including smoking (n = 18), obesity or eating disorders (n = 6), Crohn's disease (n = 2), fibromyalgia (n = 1) and cancers (n = 2). Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded serious adverse events occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of serious adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (risk difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.02-0.00) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. Secondary analysis revealed only six marginally significant adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo, which were of mild severity.ConclusionsNaltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of serious adverse events over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of oral naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017054421 .

Project description:BACKGROUND: Misclassification of adverse events in clinical trials can sometimes have serious consequences. Therefore, each of the many steps involved, from a patient's adverse experience to presentation in tables in publications, should be as standardised as possible, minimising the scope for interpretation. Adverse events are categorised by a predefined dictionary, e.g. MedDRA, which is updated biannually with many new categories. The objective of this paper is to study interobserver variation and other challenges of coding. METHODS: Systematic review using PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. All studies were screened for eligibility by two authors. RESULTS: Our search returned 520 unique studies of which 12 were included. Only one study investigated interobserver variation. It reported that 12% of the codes were evaluated differently by two coders. Independent physicians found that 8% of all the codes deviated from the original description. Other studies found that product summaries could be greatly affected by the choice of dictionary. With the introduction of MedDRA, it seems to have become harder to identify adverse events statistically because each code is divided in subgroups. To account for this, lumping techniques have been developed but are rarely used, and guidance on when to use them is vague. An additional challenge is that adverse events are censored if they already occurred in the run-in period of a trial. As there are more than 26 ways of determining whether an event has already occurred, this can lead to bias, particularly because data analysis is rarely performed blindly. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence that coding of adverse events is a reliable, unbiased and reproducible process. The increase in categories has made detecting adverse events harder, potentially compromising safety. It is crucial that readers of medical publications are aware of these challenges. Comprehensive interobserver studies are needed.

Project description:ObjectiveTo ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome.DesignA review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals.Data sourcesElectronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016.MethodsA prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data.ResultsWe identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes.ConclusionsThis review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.

Dataset Information

Concise Review: A Safety Assessment of Adipose-Derived Cell Therapy in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Reported Adverse Events.

Publications

Concise Review: A Safety Assessment of Adipose-Derived Cell Therapy in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Reported Adverse Events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets