The clinical efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cells for patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the usefulness of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to treat patients with COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs published before November 7, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of MSCs with other alternative treatments or placebos in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were included. Results
Six RCTs were included, in which the MSC and control groups consisted of 158 and 135 patients, respectively. The patients who received MSCs had a significantly lower 28-day mortality rate (7.6% vs 21.5%; OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52; I2 = 0%) and significantly higher clinical improvement rate (OR, 6.05; 95% CI, 2.31-15.83; I2 = 0%) than the controls. The patients who received MSCs were associated with a similar risk of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs to the control group (AEs: OR, 33; 95% CI, 0.09-1.18; I2 = 59%; serious AEs: OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.02-4.41; I2 = 53%). Conclusions
MSC treatment may help to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19. In addition, MSC treatment appears to be a safe therapeutic option for patients with COVID-19.
SUBMITTER: Chen C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9259515 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundElevated levels of inflammatory factors are associated with poor prognosis in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have immunomodulatory functions. Accordingly, this meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of MSC-based therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsOnline global databases were used to find relevant studies. Two independent researchers then selected and evaluated the studies for suitability while the Cochrane risk of bias tool determined the quality of all articles and Cochran's Q test and I2 index assessed the degree of heterogeneity in the principal studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager software, and the effect of each study on the overall estimate was evaluated by sensitivity analysis.ResultsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis, and all MSCs used in the trials were acquired from the umbilical cord. The results of these studies (n = 328) indicated that patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received MSCs had a 0.58 risk of death compared with controls (95% CI = 0.38, 0.87; P = 0.53; I2 = 0%). In terms of inflammatory biomarkers, MSCs reduced the levels of C-reactive protein (n = 88; MD = - 32.49; 95% CI = - 48.43, - 16.56; P = 0.46; I2 = 0%) and interferon-gamma (n = 44; SMD = - 1.23; 95% CI = - 1.89, - 0.57; P = 0.37; I2 = 0%) in severe COVID-19 patients but had no significant effect on interleukin-6 (n = 185; MD = - 0.75; 95% CI = - 7.76, 6.27; P = 0.57; I2 = 0%). A summary of the data revealed no significant differences in adverse events (n = 287) or serious adverse events (n = 229) between the MSC and control groups.ConclusionsInfusion of umbilical cord-derived MSCs is an effective strategy for treating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, with no noticeable adverse effects.
| S-EPMC10159228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.
| S-EPMC8506153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are used as an emerging new option for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, their efficacy remains controversial across studies with different doses of MSCs and cell processing methods. We conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of MSCs in the treatment of knee OA.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, China), and CNKI (National Knowledge Infrastructure, China) databases were systematically reviewed. The pain level and function improvements were evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS), McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC). The pooled estimate was calculated with weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).ResultsNine RCTs involving 476 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimate showed that the treatment of MSCs significantly reduced VAS, WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC function scores at a long-term follow-up (12 or 24 months). However, for the IKDC and WOMAC total scores, MSCs also showed significant improvement in these outcomes, although this was not statistically significant when compared to the control.ConclusionBased on the current studies, our results suggested that MSCs were a promising option for the treatment of patients with knee OA. However, considering the potential limitations, more well-performed, large-scale RCTs are needed to verify our findings.
| S-EPMC7789676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Many immunomodulators have been studied in clinical trials for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data identifying the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank immunomodulators in the treatment of COVID-19 according to their efficacy and safety. Methods Published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of immunomodulators in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were searched up to June 30, 2021. Direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was estimated, and the drugs were awarded a numerical ranking. Results Twenty-six studies were eligible. Compared with standard of care, dexamethasone and tocilizumab had significantly lower mortality rates with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.99) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.96), respectively. Meanwhile, the most effective corticosteroid, interleukin-6 antagonist, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor were hydrocortisone, sarilumab, and ruxolitinib, respectively. However, when superimposed infection was considered, ruxolitinib was the best treatment followed by baricitinib. Moreover, methylprednisolone had the worst combined efficacy and safety among the examined treatments. Conclusions Overall, immunomodulators were more effective than standard of care. Important differences exist among immunomodulators regarding both efficacy and safety in favor of ruxolitinib and baricitinib. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials should focus on JAK inhibitors. Methylprednisolone use should be discouraged because of its poor efficacy and high risk of superimposed infection. Trial Registration PROSPERO registration identifier CRD 42021257421. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00545-0.
| S-EPMC8579415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The benefits and harms of corticosteroids for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 31, 2019 to October 1, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated corticosteroids in severe COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included a composite disease progression (progression to intubation, ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ICU transfer, or death among those not ventilated at enrollment) and incidence of serious adverse events. A random-effects model was applied to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Seven RCTs involving 6250 patients were included, of which the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial comprised nearly 78% of all included subjects. Results showed that corticosteroids were associated with a decreased all-cause mortality (27.3 vs. 31.1%; RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.99; P = 0.04; low-certainty evidence). Trial sequential analysis suggested that more trials were still required to confirm the results. However, such survival benefit was absent if RECOVERY trial was excluded (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.65-1.06; P = 0.13). Furthermore, corticosteroids decreased the occurrence of composite disease progression (30.6 vs. 33.3%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92; P = 0.005), but not increased the incidence of serious adverse events (3.5 vs. 3.4%; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.39-3.43; P = 0.79).
| S-EPMC7897363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLopinavir-ritonavir is a repurposed drug for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this study, a pooled effect of lopinavir-ritonavir on mortality, virological cure, radiological improvement and safety profile in COVID-19 patients has been evaluated.MethodsThe databases were searched for comparative randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. The mortality outcome was pooled as a risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. The virological cure, radiological improvement and adverse events were pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Hanzle method random effect model. The heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test.ResultsOut of 82 full text assessed, seven studies were included in the analysis. The included studies had five different control interventions: supportive care (n=4), umifenovir (arbidol) (n=2), navaferon (recombinant anti-tumour and anti-virus protein) (n=1), lopinavir-ritonavir+novaferon (n=1) and lopinavir-ritonavir+interferon beta 1b+ribavirin (n=1). Lopinavir-ritonavir group did not show significant difference in mortality [RD: 0.00 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.02), I2=0], virological cure [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.31), I2=0%], radiological improvement [RR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05)] and adverse events [RR: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.17, 38.90), I2=75%] than supportive care. Similarly, no difference was observed for any efficacy outcomes between lopinavir-ritonavir and other control interventions. We observed significantly high risk of adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir as compared to umifenovir [RR: 2.96 (95% CI: 1.42-6.18); I2=0%].ConclusionThere is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8056786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020.ResultsFive RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18-2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90-1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28-2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31-2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events.ConclusionsRemdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.
| S-EPMC8083728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current study systematically reviewed, summarized and meta-analyzed the clinical features of the vaccines in clinical trials to provide a better estimate of their efficacy, side effects and immunogenicity. All relevant publications were systematically searched and collected from major databases up to 12 March 2021. A total of 25 RCTs (123 datasets), 58,889 cases that received the COVID-19 vaccine and 46,638 controls who received placebo were included in the meta-analysis. In total, mRNA-based and adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines had 94.6% (95% CI 0.936-0.954) and 80.2% (95% CI 0.56-0.93) efficacy in phase II/III RCTs, respectively. Efficacy of the adenovirus-vectored vaccine after the first (97.6%; 95% CI 0.939-0.997) and second (98.2%; 95% CI 0.980-0.984) doses was the highest against receptor-binding domain (RBD) antigen after 3 weeks of injections. The mRNA-based vaccines had the highest level of side effects reported except for diarrhea and arthralgia. Aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the lowest systemic and local side effects between vaccines' adjuvant or without adjuvant, except for injection site redness. The adenovirus-vectored and mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19 showed the highest efficacy after first and second doses, respectively. The mRNA-based vaccines had higher side effects. Remarkably few experienced extreme adverse effects and all stimulated robust immune responses.
| S-EPMC8148145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Beneficial off-target effects of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination might offer general protection from respiratory tract infections. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ascertain BCG vaccination effectiveness against COVID-19. We looked up English RCTs from 1 January 2019 to 15 November 2022 in Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine RCTs, including 7963 participants, were included. The infection rate of COVID-19 was not decreased in people who were vaccinated with BCG (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82–1.13; I2 = 4%), and the BCG vaccination group did not have decreased COVID-19 related-hospitalization (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37–1.18; I2 = 42%), admission to the ICU (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05–1.18; I2 = 0%), and mortality (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.17–2.44; I2 = 0%) compared with the control group. There is not sufficient evidence to support the use of BCG vaccination in the prevention of COVID-19 infection and severe COVID-19 and avoid overstating the role of BCG vaccination leading to its misuse.
| S-EPMC9917948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted meta-analyses of findings from randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term trials for acute mania in manic or mixed states of DSM (III-IV) bipolar I disorder in 56 drug-placebo comparisons of 17 agents from 38 studies involving 10,800 patients. Of drugs tested, 13 (76%) were more effective than placebo: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperdone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone. Their pooled effect size for mania improvement (Hedges' g in 48 trials) was 0.42 (confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.48); pooled responder risk ratio (46 trials) was 1.52 (CI: 1.42-1.62); responder rate difference (RD) was 17% (drug: 48%, placebo: 31%), yielding an estimated number-needed-to-treat of 6 (all p<0.0001). In several direct comparisons, responses to various antipsychotics were somewhat greater or more rapid than lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine; lithium did not differ from valproate, nor did second generation antipsychotics differ from haloperidol. Meta-regression associated higher study site counts, as well as subject number with greater placebo (not drug) response; and higher baseline mania score with greater drug (not placebo) response. Most effective agents had moderate effect-sizes (Hedges' g=0.26-0.46); limited data indicated large effect sizes (Hedges' g=0.51-2.32) for: carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, risperidone, and tamoxifen. The findings support the efficacy of most clinically used antimanic treatments, but encourage more head-to-head studies and development of agents with even greater efficacy.
| S-EPMC3055677 | biostudies-other