Dataset Information

Systemic therapy of MSCs in bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Over the past decades, many studies focused on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) therapy for bone regeneration. Due to the efficiency of topical application has been widely dicussed and systemic application was also a feasible way for new bone formation, the aim of this study was to systematically review systemic therapy of MSCs for bone regeneration in pre-clinical studies.

Methods

The article search was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases. Original research articles that assessed potential effect of systemic application of MSCs for bone regeneration in vivo were selected and evaluated in this review, according to eligibility criteria. The efficacy of MSC systemic treatment was analyzed by random effects meta-analysis, and the outcomes were expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analyses were conducted on animal species and gender, MSCs types, frequency and time of injection, and bone diseases.

Results

Twenty-three articles were selected in this review, of which 21 were included in meta-analysis. The results showed that systemic therapy increased bone mineral density (SMD 3.02 [1.84, 4.20]), bone volume to tissue volume ratio (2.10 [1.16, 3.03]), and the percentage of new bone area (7.03 [2.10, 11.96]). Bone loss caused by systemic disease tended to produce a better response to systemic treatment (p=0.05 in BMD, p=0.03 in BV/TV).

Conclusion

This study concluded that systemic therapy of MSCs promotes bone regeneration in preclinical experiments. These results provided important information for the systemic application of MSCs as a potential application of bone formation in further animal experiments.

SUBMITTER: Fu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254211 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess the risk of new-onset or worsening hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia with systemic corticosteroid therapy (CST) as reported in published randomised control trial (RCT) studies. Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Scopus STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published articles on results of RCT with a systemic CST arm with numerical data presented on adverse effect (AE). Reports of hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia associated with systemic CST in patients or healthy volunteer's ≥17 years of age. Risk of bias tool, assessment at the level of AE and key study characteristics. A total of 5446 articles were screened to include 118 studies with 152 systemic CST arms (total participants=17 113 among which 8569 participants treated with CST). Pooled prevalence of hyperglycaemia in the CST arms within the studies was 10% (95% CI 7% to 14%), with the highest prevalence in respiratory illnesses at 22% (95% CI 9% to 35%). Pooled prevalence of severe hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia within the corticosteroid arms was 5% (95% CI 2% to 9%), 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%), 13% (95% CI 8% to 18%), 8% (95% CI 4% to 17%), respectively. CST was significantly associated hyperglycaemia, hypertension and weight gain as noted in double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel-arms studies: OR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.72), 1.68 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.95) and 5.20 (95% CI 2.10 to 12.90), respectively. Intravenous therapy posed higher risk than oral therapy: OR of 2.39 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.91). There was significant heterogeneity in the AE definitions and quality of AE reporting in the primary studies and patient populations in the studies. The impact of cumulative dose effect on incidental AE could not be calculated. Systemic CST use is associated with increased risk of metabolic AEs, which differs for each disease group and route of administration. CRD42020161270.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic therapy is the standard treatment against advanced gastric cancer. Fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet has been recommended as the preferred first-line strategy. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive and hierarchical evidence that compares all eligible literature simultaneously.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO meeting library from inception to October 2018. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different first-line systemic treatments against advanced gastric cancer were eligible. Overall survival was utilized as the primary endpoint. Pairwise and network calculations were based on a random-effects model and the hierarchical ranking was numerically indicated by P-score. All procedures were conducted according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1 and PRISMA for Network Meta-analysis (Registration identifier: CRD42018084951).ResultsA total of 119 studies were eligible for our pooled analysis. Concerning general analysis, 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based triplet' topped the overall survival hierarchy (HR 0.91 [0.83-0.99], P-score = 0.903, p = 0.04) while it ranked in second place for progression-free survival and objective response rate. However, it displayed worse tolerability against 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet'. More specifically, 'Capecitabine plus cisplatin-based triplet plus targeted medication' topped the ranking among all fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based regimens in additional analysis. Nevertheless, it did not reach statistical advantage against fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet in terms of survival benefits, while still displaying significantly worse safety profile.ConclusionsTaken together, fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet (especially capecitabine or S-1) should still be considered as the preferred first-line regimen owing to its comparable survival benefits and lower toxicity.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic therapy (ST) is a psychotherapeutic intervention in complex human systems (both psychological and interpersonal). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an established treatment for children and adolescents with mental disorders. As methodologically rigorous systematic reviews on ST in this population are lacking, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the benefit and harm of ST (and ST as an add-on to CBT) with CBT in children and adolescents with mental disorders.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and other sources for randomised controlled trials in 14 mental disorder classes for the above comparisons in respect of effects on patient-relevant outcomes (search date: 7/2022). Where possible, meta-analyses were performed and results were graded into 3 different evidence categories: "proof", "indication", or "hint" (or none of these categories). PRISMA standards were followed.ResultsFifteen studies in 5 mental disorder classes with usable data were identified. 2079 patients (mean age: 10 to 19 years) were analysed. 12/15 studies and 29/30 outcomes showed a high risk of bias. In 2 classes, statistically significant and clinically relevant effects in favour of ST were found, supporting the conclusion of a hint of greater benefit of ST for mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use and of ST as an add-on to CBT for obsessive-compulsive disorders. In 2 other classes (eating disorders; hyperkinetic disorders), there was no evidence of greater benefit or harm of ST. For affective disorders, a statistically significant effect to the disadvantage of ST was found for 1 outcome, supporting the conclusion of a hint of lesser benefit of ST.ConclusionsOur results show a hint of greater benefit of ST (or ST as an add-on to CBT) compared with CBT for 2 mental disorder classes in children and adolescents (mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use, obsessive compulsive disorders). Given the importance of CBT as a control intervention, ST can therefore be considered a beneficial treatment option for children and adolescents with certain mental disorders. Limitations include an overall high risk of bias of studies and outcomes and a lack of data for several disorders.

Project description:Uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive mesenchymal neoplasm associated with a poor prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the standard therapy for patients with uLMS. However, it is unclear which treatment regimen results in the most favorable clinical outcome. We performed a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis to assess the efficiency of different treatments received by patients with advanced, metastatic, and relapsing uLMS by evaluating the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) as primary endpoints. The frequentist random effects meta-analysis model was used to compare the outcomes of different treatment regimens for advanced uLMS. A meta-regression analysis was performed to estimate the association between the study-specific hazard ratios and specific demographic variables. A meta-analysis of 51 reports including 1664 patients was conducted. Among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy (916 patients; 55%), gemcitabine and docetaxel were the most frequently used drugs. First-line monotherapy with alkylating agents (pooled ORR = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.52) and second-line monotherapy with protein kinase inhibitors (pooled ORR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.39-0.52) resulted in favorable prognoses. The combinations of anthracycline plus alkylating therapy (pooled DCR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.67-0.79) and of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (pooled DCR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.63-0.75) showed the greatest benefits when used as first-line and second-line chemotherapies, respectively. Subgroup meta-analysis results revealed that dual-regimen therapies comprising anthracycline plus alkylating therapy and gemcitabine plus docetaxel are practical therapeutic choices for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages III-IVb with distant metastases when assessed by computed tomography (p = 0.001). Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and local radiotherapy resulted in favorable outcomes for patients with earlier stages of distant relapsed uLMS (p < 0.001). Our findings provide a basis for designing new therapeutic strategies and can potentially guide clinical practice toward better prognoses for uLMS patients with advanced, metastatic, and relapsing disease.

Project description:ImportanceThe treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials.ObjectiveTo evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy.Data sourcesWe searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020.Study selectionWe included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting.Data extraction and synthesisThe reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).FindingsFourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.