| Literature DB >> 31639063 |
Xinxin Zhao1, Jingjing Ruan1, Hui Tang1, Jia Li2, Yingxuan Shi3, Meng Li3, Suke Li3, Cuili Xu3, Qing Lu4, Chengxiang Dai5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We used multimodal compositional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques, combined with clinical outcomes, to differentiate the alternations of composition in repair cartilage with allogeneic human adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells (haMPCs) in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients.Entities:
Keywords: Composition alternations; Human adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells; Knee osteoarthritis; Multi-compositional MRI sequences; Repair cartilage
Year: 2019 PMID: 31639063 PMCID: PMC6805685 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-019-1406-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
| Inclusion criteria | |
| 1. Grade II–III osteoarthritis, identified by two different observers, according to the Kellgren-Lawrence grading scale | |
| 2. Hematological and biochemical analyses with no significant alterations that contraindicate intervention | |
| 3. Aged 18 to 70 years old, males or females | |
| 4. Diagnostic course of knee osteoarthritis for more than 6 months and less than 10 years | |
| 5. An average pain intensity of grade 3 or more (less than 8) on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) | |
| 6. Informed written consent provided by the patient | |
| Exclusion criteria | |
| 1. History of one or more drug allergies and two or more food allergies | |
| 2. Obesity with a body mass index > 30 (calculated as mass in kg/height in m2) | |
| 3. Neoplasia | |
| 4. Signs of infection or positive serology for HIV, hepatitis, or syphilis | |
| 5. Congenital or acquired diseases leading to significant knee deformities that may interfere with cell application or the interpretation of results | |
| 6. Pregnancy or breastfeeding | |
| 7. Immunosuppression | |
| 8. Intra-articular injection of any drug during the previous 3 months | |
| 9. Participation in another clinical trial or treatment with another investigational product within 30 days prior to inclusion in the study | |
| 10. Other conditions that may, according to medical criteria, discourage participation in the study |
Demographic information on subjects
| Low dose ( | Mid dose ( | High dose ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 52.05 ± 11.64 | 59.58 ± 10.24 | 52.69 ± 8.72 | 0.95 | 0.41 |
| Gender, female (male) | 4 (2) | 5 (1) | 4 (2) | 0.48 | 0.79 |
| Height, cm | 165.50 ± 6.44 | 159.83 ± 6.77 | 163.60 ± 4.10 | 1.86 | 0.19 |
| Weight, kg | 71.17 ± 8.84 | 60.83 ± 10.23 | 64.71 ± 5.09 | 2.25 | 0.14 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 25.63 ± 1.93 | 23.73 ± 2.94 | 24.08 ± 1.44 | 1.21 | 0.33 |
| KLG, at base time | |||||
| 0–1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
The characterization of the adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells from three donors
| Description | Characterization | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Donor | |||
| No. | 1# | 2# | 3# |
| Sex | Male | Female | Female |
| Age (yes) | 32 | 23 | 26 |
| Volume of adipose (ml) | 150 | 100 | 100 |
| Cell | |||
| Morphology | Cells are adherence to plastic and in spindle shape with large oval nuclei | ||
| Cell marker | Positive marker (CD90, CD73, CD105) > 95% +; negative marker (HLA-DR, CD14, CD45) < 2% | ||
| Potency of chondrogenic differentiation | Positive | ||
| Viability | > 80% | ||
| Endotoxin | < 4 EU/ml | ||
| Sterility | Negative | ||
| Mycoplasma | Negative | ||
Fig. 1Study flow diagram. Abbreviations: haMPCs, human adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells; Clinical E, clinical evaluation; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging
Fig. 2The manually traced ROIs contain the cartilage on the 3D fat-suppressed SPGR for measuring cartilage volume (a) and transverse fat-suppressed T2-weighted images for quantitative MRI measures (b)
Longitudinal change between base time and 48 weeks in compositional MRI measurements and clinical outcomes
| Measurement | Base time | 48 weeks | |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1rho (ms) | 39.73 ± 2.97 | 37.99 ± 2.61 | < 0.0001* |
| T2 (ms) | 42.01 ± 4.50 | 38.86 ± 2.82 | 0.0001* |
| T2star (ms) | 24.25 ± 2.25 | 22.49 ± 1.52 | < 0.0001* |
| R2star (s−1) | 46.08 ± 5.70 | 48.87 ± 6.35 | 0.0001* |
| ADC (×10−3 mm2/s) | 1.56 ± 0.12 | 1.44 ± 0.12 | 0.0003* |
| FA | 0.46 ± 0.04 | 0.50 ± 0.04 | 0.002* |
| WORMS | 12.58 ± 3.57 | 12.84 ± 3.61 | 0.146 |
| CV (mm3) | 31,441 ± 5578 | 31,517 ± 5828 | 0.781 |
| WOMAC | 42.94 ± 16.42 | 25 ± 14.26 | < 0.0001* |
| SF-36 | 89.83 ± 12.19 | 72 ± 12.69 | < 0.0001* |
Values are given as mean ± standard deviation of the mean
*Significantly different between two groups (P < 0.05)
Fig. 3a–j Comparison of mean measurement values in the articular cartilage of three dose groups
Fig. 4Representative images of quantitative MRI mappings of three patients from high (60 years, F), middle (68 years, M), and low (65 years, M) dose groups. For the same patient, the change (red arrow) of the T1rho (a) image was more obvious than that of the T2 (b), T2star (c), R2 star (d), and ADC (e) images. Changes of T1rho values between two examination time points in the patient from the high-dose group were more pronounced than those from the other two groups, whereas this phenomenon was not found in other MRI images
Longitudinal change of comprehensive MRI measurements and clinical outcomes for three dose groups during the trial
| Measurement | Group | Base time | 48 weeks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1rho (ms) | High | 41.55 ± 2.86 | 38.82 ± 2.11 | 0.002* |
| Mid | 39.30 ± 2.01 | 37.48 ± 1.93 | 0.002* | |
| Low | 38.91 ± 3.24 | 37.94 ± 3.13 | 0.038* | |
| T2 (ms) | High | 42.12 ± 4.13 | 39.65 ± 3.37 | 0.003* |
| Mid | 40.16 ± 2.60 | 37.21 ± 1.73 | 0.003* | |
| Low | 43.77 ± 6.09 | 39.73 ± 2.78 | 0.075 | |
| T2star (ms) | High | 23.43 ± 2.30 | 21.77 ± 1.41 | 0.011* |
| Mid | 24.22 ± 2.18 | 22.60 ± 1.77 | 0.012* | |
| Low | 25.11 ± 2.32 | 23.09 ± 1.27 | 0.012* | |
| R2star (s−1) | High | 48.47 ± 4.69 | 51.25 ± 2.85 | 0.021* |
| Mid | 44.57 ± 8.26 | 46.80 ± 10.57 | 0.180 | |
| Low | 45.21 ± 3.16 | 48.57 ± 2.29 | 0.005* | |
| ADC (×10−3 mm2/s) | High | 1.53 ± 0.10 | 1.37 ± 0.08 | 0.026* |
| Mid | 1.59 ± 0.15 | 1.52 ± 0.11 | 0.112 | |
| Low | 1.56 ± 0.12 | 1.42 ± 0.14 | 0.052 | |
| FA | High | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 0.51 ± 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Mid | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 0.225 | |
| Low | 0.47 ± 0.02 | 0.51 ± 0.03 | 0.075 | |
| WORMS | High | 10.88 ± 5.45 | 11.04 ± 5.02 | 0.918 |
| Mid | 12.42 ± 7.16 | 12.38 ± 7.17 | 0.985 | |
| Low | 14.43 ± 7.06 | 15.10 ± 6.90 | 0.758 | |
| CV | High | 27,863.12 ± 5688.74 | 28,073.37 ± 5871.8 | 0.599 |
| Mid | 34,645.82 ± 4666.97 | 34,870.24 ± 4991.32 | 0.758 | |
| Low | 31,815.91 ± 4879.96 | 31,607.52 ± 5238.41 | 0.514 | |
| WOMAC | High | 38.83 ± 12.61 | 24.33 ± 12.88 | 0.077 |
| Mid | 48.83 ± 16.22 | 23.17 ± 12.89 | 0.035* | |
| Low | 46.17 ± 21.48 | 27.50 ± 18.64 | 0.139 | |
| SF-36 | High | 88.83 ± 14.41 | 74.0 ± 15.74 | 0.119 |
| Mid | 89.67 ± 10.21 | 70.5 ± 8.41 | 0.005* | |
| Low | 91.0 ± 13.80 | 71.5 ± 14.88 | 0.040* |
Values are given as mean ± standard deviation of the mean
*Significantly different between two groups (P < 0.05)
The results of D value analysis and multiple comparison of three dose groups
| Measurement | High | Mid | Low | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1rho (ms) | 2.73 ± 0.40 | 1.82 ± 0.40 | 0.49 ± 0.49 | 6.31 | 0.025* |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.004* | |||
| High vs mid | 0.129 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.056 | ||||
| T2 (ms) | 2.47 ± 1.12 | 2.95 ± 1.12 | 4.04 ± 1.11 | 0.517 | 0.606 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.337 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.764 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.502 | ||||
| T2star (ms) | 1.66 ± 0.46 | 1.62 ± 0.46 | 2.01 ± 0.46 | 0.222 | 0.804 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.565 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.951 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.554 | ||||
| R2star (s−1) | − 2.78 ± 1.04 | − 2.23 ± 1.04 | − 3.36 ± 1.04 | 0.298 | 0.747 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.699 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.710 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.452 | ||||
| ADC (×10−3 mm2/s) | 0.16 ± 0.047 | 0.07 ± 0.047 | 0.13 ± 0.047 | 0.956 | 0.407 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.664 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.195 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.376 | ||||
| FA | − 0.045 ± 0.016 | − 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.037 ± 0.016 | 0.627 | 0.548 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.737 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.291 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.463 | ||||
| WORMS | − 0.167 ± 0.75 | 0.042 ± 0.77 | − 0.67 ± 0.74 | 1.571 | 0.240 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.394 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.438 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.398 | ||||
| CV | − 210.25 ± 485.2 | − 224.42 ± 485 | − 208.38 ± 485.23 | 0.257 | 0.777 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.551 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.984 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.538 | ||||
| WOMAC | 14.5 ± 5.5 | 20.67 ± 5.54 | 18.67 ± 5.54 | 0.322 | 0.729 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.857 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.717 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.965 | ||||
| SF-36 | 14.83 ± 14.13 | 19.17 ± 13.79 | 19.50 ± 10.97 | 0.239 | 0.790 |
| Multiple comparison | High vs low | 0.812 | |||
| High vs mid | 0.835 | ||||
| Mid vs low | 0.999 | ||||
Values are given as mean ± standard deviation of the mean
*Significantly different between two groups (P < 0.05)
Fig. 5WOMAC pain (a) and SF-16 life quality (b) improvement during the study