F Cheng1, Z Huang2, Z Li2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Zigong First People's Hospital, 42 Shangyihao Road, Zigong, 643000, Sichuan, China. 1072893878@qq.com. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Zigong First People's Hospital, 42 Shangyihao Road, Zigong, 643000, Sichuan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stem-cell (MSC) therapy for perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease (CD) remains controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MSC therapy for the treatment of perianal fistulas in CD. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies that reported efficacy and/or safety of MSC therapy for perianal CD (pCD). We used the metaprop command of the meta package in R and RevMan to assess the efficacy and safety. Subgroup analyses were performed for exploration of heterogeneity regarding all outcomes. RESULTS: After screening, 13 trials were included in our study. RevMan for meta-analysis showed that: (1) patients had healed perianal fistulas after MSC treatment, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.05 (P = 0.0002; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41, 3.00) vs controls; (2) pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used to evaluate the healing of fistulas showed that MSC therapy had a higher healing rate (HR) compared to control (OR = 1.95; P = 0.0007; 95% CI 1.33, 2.87). R software for meta-analysis showed that 63% (95% CI 0.53, 0.74) of patients achieved clinical healing as a result of local therapy with MSCs. Random-effects pooled rates of clinical response were 30% (95% CI 0.18, 0.48). Pelvic MRI used to evaluate fistula healing showed a HR of 56% (95% CI 0.46, 0.69). The HR with autologous MSCs was higher than with allogeneic MSCs (79% vs 52%; P < 0.05). Uniform injection of MSCs according to the size of fistulas improve the HR (80% vs 55%; P < 0.05) compared with fixed-dose MSCs. There was no significant increase in adverse events (OR = 1.14; P = 0.54; 95% CI 0.75, 1.74) in patients treated with MSCs and no major MSC-related adverse event has been reported so far. CONCLUSIONS: Local administration of MSCs is an effective and safe method for pCD. It also represents hope for effective treatment of refractory pCD.
BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stem-cell (MSC) therapy for perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease (CD) remains controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MSC therapy for the treatment of perianal fistulas in CD. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies that reported efficacy and/or safety of MSC therapy for perianal CD (pCD). We used the metaprop command of the meta package in R and RevMan to assess the efficacy and safety. Subgroup analyses were performed for exploration of heterogeneity regarding all outcomes. RESULTS: After screening, 13 trials were included in our study. RevMan for meta-analysis showed that: (1) patients had healed perianal fistulas after MSC treatment, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.05 (P = 0.0002; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41, 3.00) vs controls; (2) pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used to evaluate the healing of fistulas showed that MSC therapy had a higher healing rate (HR) compared to control (OR = 1.95; P = 0.0007; 95% CI 1.33, 2.87). R software for meta-analysis showed that 63% (95% CI 0.53, 0.74) of patients achieved clinical healing as a result of local therapy with MSCs. Random-effects pooled rates of clinical response were 30% (95% CI 0.18, 0.48). Pelvic MRI used to evaluate fistula healing showed a HR of 56% (95% CI 0.46, 0.69). The HR with autologous MSCs was higher than with allogeneic MSCs (79% vs 52%; P < 0.05). Uniform injection of MSCs according to the size of fistulas improve the HR (80% vs 55%; P < 0.05) compared with fixed-dose MSCs. There was no significant increase in adverse events (OR = 1.14; P = 0.54; 95% CI 0.75, 1.74) in patients treated with MSCs and no major MSC-related adverse event has been reported so far. CONCLUSIONS: Local administration of MSCs is an effective and safe method for pCD. It also represents hope for effective treatment of refractory pCD.
Authors: David A Schwartz; Edward V Loftus; William J Tremaine; Remo Panaccione; W Scott Harmsen; Alan R Zinsmeister; William J Sandborn Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: E Domènech; J Hinojosa; P Nos; E Garcia-Planella; E Cabré; I Bernal; M A Gassull Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Wolfgang Wagner; Simone Bork; Patrick Horn; Damir Krunic; Thomas Walenda; Anke Diehlmann; Vladimir Benes; Jonathon Blake; Franz-Xaver Huber; Volker Eckstein; Petra Boukamp; Anthony D Ho Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: G Pellino; D S Keller; G M Sampietro; I Angriman; M Carvello; V Celentano; F Colombo; F Di Candido; S Laureti; G Luglio; G Poggioli; M Rottoli; S Scaringi; G Sciaudone; G Sica; L Sofo; S Leone; S Danese; A Spinelli; G Delaini; F Selvaggi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Roxanne Villiger; Daniela Cabalzar-Wondberg; Daniela Zeller; Pascal Frei; Luc Biedermann; Christian Schneider; Michael Scharl; Gerhard Rogler; Matthias Turina; Andreas Rickenbacher; Benjamin Misselwitz Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-02-27