| Literature DB >> 33428279 |
V S Narayan1, L L C van den Bol1, N van Geel2, M W Bekkenk1, R M Luiten1, A Wolkerstorfer1.
Abstract
Stabilized vitiligo resistant to conventional therapy (e.g. segmental vitiligo) and piebaldism lesions can be treated with autologous cellular grafting techniques, such as non-cultured cell suspension transplantation (NCST) and cultured melanocyte transplantation (CMT). These methods are preferred when treating larger surface areas due to the small amount of donor skin needed. However, the donor to recipient expansion ratios and outcomes reported in studies with cellular grafting vary widely, and to date, no overview or guideline exists on the optimal ratio. The aim of our study was to obtain an overview of the various expansion ratios used in cellular grafting and to identify whether expansion ratios affect repigmentation and colour match. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to review clinical studies that reported the expansion ratio and repigmentation after cellular grafting. We included 31 eligible clinical studies with 1591 patients in total. Our study provides an overview of various expansion ratios used in cellular grafting for vitiligo and piebaldism, which varied from 1:1 up to 1:100. We found expansion ratios between 1:1 and 1:10 for studies investigating NCST and from 1:20 to 1:100 in studies evaluating CMT. Pooled analyses of studies with the same expansion ratio and repigmentation thresholds showed that when using the lowest (1:3) expansion ratio, the proportion of lesions achieving >50% or >75% repigmentation after NCST was significantly better than when using the highest (1:10) expansion ratio (χ2 P = 0.000 and χ2 P = 0.006, respectively). Less than half of our included studies stated the colour match between different expansion ratios, and results were variable. In conclusion, the results of our study indicate that higher expansion ratios lead to lower repigmentation percentages after NCST treatment. This should be taken into consideration while determining which expansion ratio to use for treating a patient.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33428279 PMCID: PMC8247963 DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol ISSN: 0926-9959 Impact factor: 6.166
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram of selection procedure and included studies. The selection procedure for eligible studies and exclusion criteria are shown in this PRISMA flow diagram.
Study characteristics and results
| Author, year | Study design |
| Type of depigmentation | Stability disease (months) | Preparation recipient site | Treatment | Post‐Treatment | D:R ratio | Repigmentation |
Good colour match
| Follow‐up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Garg, 2019 | CS | 10 (20) |
8 NSV 2 SV | ≥6 | Er:YAG | NCST | 1:3 | >75%: 14 lesions (70%) | Unknown | 6 | |
| Kachhawa, 2017 | CS | 152 (437) |
151 NSV 1 SV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | PUVA | 1:4 | >75%: 179 lesions (41%) | Unknown | 6 |
| El‐Zawahry, 2017 | CT |
A. 10 (61) B. 21 (89) | NSV | ≥12 |
A. CO2 B. Cryo | NCST | UVB | 1:5 |
A. >75%: 2 patients (20%) B. >75%: 9 patients (43%) |
A. 6 patients (60%) B. unknown | 18 |
| Razmi, 2018 | RCT | 30 (42) |
21 NSV 6 SV 3 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:5 | >75%: 24 lesions (57%) | 25 lesions (60%) | 4 | |
| Tegta, 2006 | RCT |
A. 10 B. 10 |
11 NSV 4 SV 5 FV | ≥12 | Blister or Dermabrasion | NCST |
A. 1:3 B. 1:5 |
A. >75%: 5 patients (50%) B. >75%: 0 patients (0%) |
A. 3 patients (30%) B. 1 patient (10%) | 3 | |
| Tawfik, 2019 | RCT |
42 1a. (25) 1b. (25) | NSV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST |
1a. None 1b. NB‐UVB | 1:3 |
1a. >75%: 20 lesions (80%) 1b. >75%: 22 lesions (88%) |
1a. 25 lesions (100%) 1b. 25 lesions (100%) | 6 |
|
2a. (26) 2b. (26) |
2a. None 2b. NB‐UVB | 1:10 |
2a. >75%: 2 lesions (8%) 2b. >75%: 3 lesions (12%) |
2a. 17 lesions (65%) 2b. 17 lesions (65%) | 6 | ||||||
| Budania, 2012 | RCT | 21 (28) |
8 NSV 10 SV 3 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | sunlight exposure | 1:10 | >75%: 25 lesions (89%) | 23 lesions (82%) | 4 |
| El‐Zawahry, 2011 | CS | 22 |
19 NSV 1 SV 2 FV | ≥12 | Cryo | NCST | PUVA | 1:10 | >50%: 12 patients (55%) | Unknown | 6‐17 |
| Huggins, 2012 | CS | 23 (29) |
19 NSV 2 SV 8 FV | ≥6 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:10 | >65%: 14 lesions (48%) | 18 lesions (62%) | 3‐6 | |
| Mulekar, 2006 | CS |
25 A. 25 B. 25 |
17 NSV 8 SV | ≥6 | Dermabrasion | NCST |
A. None B. Oral beta‐methasone | 1:10 |
A. >65%: 8 patients (32%) B. >65%: 22 patients (88%) | Unknown | 12 |
| Mulekar, 2005 | CS | 142 | NSV | ≥6 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:10 | >65%: 95 patients (67%) | 125 patients (88%) | 12‐72 | |
| Mulekar, 2003 | CS | 175 |
114 NSV 43 SV 18 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:10 | >65%: 129 patients (74%) | Unknown | 12 | |
| Mutalik, 2017 | RCT |
A. 25 B. 25 |
14 NSV 10 SV 26 FV | ≥24 | Dermabrasion | NCST |
A. None B. Oral Cyclosporin | 1:10 |
A. >75%: 7 patients (28%) B. >75%: 25 patients (100%) | Unknown | 6 |
| Pandya, 2005 | CS |
A. 4 B. 23 |
25 NSV 2 SV | ≥24 | Dermabrasion |
A.CMT B.NCST |
A. unclear B. 1:10 |
A. >65%: 2 patients (50%) B. >65%: 16 patients (70%) | Unknown | 6 | |
| Ramos, 2017 | CS | 20 (24) |
8 NSV 12 SV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | sunlight exposure | 1:10 | >50%: 15 patients (75%) | 17 lesions (85%) | 3‐6 |
| Thakur, 2019 | RCT |
A. 10 B. 10 |
12 NSV 8 SV |
A. 3–6 B. ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:10 |
A. >75%: 3 patients (30%) B. >75%: 6 patients (60%) |
A. 8 patients (80%) B. 8 patients (80%) | 6 | |
| Vazquez‐Martinez, 2011 | CT | 11 |
NSV SV FV§ | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:10 | Unclear | Unknown | 12 | |
| Bao, 2015 | CT |
83 A. (83) B. (83) |
43 NSV 40 SV | ≥12 | CO2 |
A.CMT B.NCST |
A. 1:20 B. 1:5 |
A. >50%: 68 lesions (82%) B. >50%: 67 lesions (81%) | Nearly uniform in both methods | 12 | |
| Verma, 2014 | RCT |
A. 6 (50) B. 19 (50) |
20 NSV 2 SV 3 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion |
A.CMT B.NCST |
A. Puvasol B. Puvasol |
A. 1:100 B. 1:10 |
A. >70%: 26 lesions (52%) B. >70%: 31 lesions (62%) | Unknown | 6 |
|
| |||||||||||
| van Geel, 2004 | RCT |
A. 19 (22) B. 9 (11) | NSV |
A. ≥12 B. <12 | CO2 | NCST | UVB or PUVA | 1:1 ‐ 1:4.5 |
A. >75%: 9 lesions (41%) B. >75%: 0 lesions (0%) | 13 lesions (72%) | 12 |
| Lommerts, 2017 | RCT |
10 A. (10) B. (10) |
3 SV 7 P | ≥12 |
A.CO2‐209 μm B.CO2‐144 μm | NCST | UVA | 1:4‐1:5 |
A. >75%: 5 lesions (50%) B. >75%: 4 lesions (40%) |
A. 9 lesions (90%) B. 9 lesions (90%) | 6 |
| Khodadadi, 2010 | CS | 10 |
6 NSV 4 FV | ≥12 | Intraepidermal injection | NCST | 1:3‐1:7 | >75%: 4 patients (40%) | 4 patients (40%) | 6 | |
| Gill, 2019 | CS | 50 |
40 NSV 4 SV 6 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:3‐1:10 | >70%: 31 patients (62%) | Unclear | 6 | |
| Gupta, 2019 | RCT |
A. 15 (22) B. 17 (25) |
18 NSV 6 SV 8 FV | ≥12 |
A. Er:YAG B. Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:3‐1:10 |
A. >50%: 9 patients (60%) B. >50%: 10 patients (59%) | Unknown | 6 | |
| Mulekar, 2004 | CS | 64 |
49 SV 15 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:3‐1:10 | >65%: 55 patients (86%) | Unknown | 60 | |
| Orouji, 2018 | CT | 300 (1060) |
231 NSV 10 SV 59 FV | ≥12 | Intralesional injection | NCST | 1:3‐1:10 | >75%: 109 patients (36%) | Unknown | 6 | |
| Sahni, 2011 | CS | 13 (19) |
6 NSV 6 SV 1 FV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:3‐1:10 | >75%: 19 lesions (100%) | 16 lesions (84%) | 4 | |
| Olsson, 1998 | CS | 23 (27) |
17 NSV 3 SV 3 P | ≈89 mean | Dermabrasion | NCST | 1:4‐1:10 | >75%: 23 lesions (85%) | Unknown | 6–12 | |
| Parambath, 2019 | RCT |
20 A. (20) B. (20) |
13 NSV 7 SV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST |
A. None B. PRP | 1:4‐1:10 |
A. >75%: 11 lesions (55%) B. >75%: 16 lesions (80%) | Unknown | 6 |
| Ebadi, 2015 | CT |
10 A. (9) B. (10) | NSV | ≥12 | Dermabrasion | NCST |
A. None B. Excimer laser | 1:5‐1:10 |
A. >65%: 1 lesion (11%) B. >65%: 4 lesions (40%) | Unknown | 3–4 |
| Hong, 2011 | CT |
A. 35 B. 67 |
12 NSV 90 FV | ≥6 | CO2 | CMT |
A.<1:10 B.>1:10 |
A. >50%: 31 patients (89%) B. >50%: 57 patients (85%) | Unknown | 6 | |
Abbreviations: CMT, autologous cultured melanocyte transplantation; CO2, CO2‐laser; Cryo, cryoblebbing; CS, case series; CT, clinical trial;DR ratio, donor‐recipient size ratio; Er:YAG, erbium‐doped yttrium aluminium garnet laser; FV, focal vitiligo; n, number of patients or lesions; NB‐UVB, narrowband ultraviolet‐B phototherapy; NCST, autologous non‐cultured cell suspension transplantation; NSV, non‐segmental vitiligo; P, piebaldism; PRP, platelet‐rich plasma; PUVA, psoralen and ultraviolet A; Puvasol, psoralen combined with sunlight exposure; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SV, segmental vitiligo; UVB, ultraviolet‐B phototherapy.
Only 1 (relevant) treatment arm is shown of this study.
Analysis of repigmentation was provided per vitiligo subtype in study.
Number of patients of each subtype unknown.
(a) Percentage of NCST treated lesions with >50% repigmentation in three DR expansion ratio groups. (b) Percentage of NCST treated lesions with >75% repigmentation in three DR expansion ratio groups. (c) Percentage of NCST treated lesions with >90% repigmentation in three DR expansion ratio groups
| (a) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DR ratio | Author, year | Lesions > 50% | Total lesions | Total percentage lesions with >50% repigmentation |
| 1:3 | Garg, 2019 | 18 | 20 | |
| Tegta, 2006 | 7 | 10 | ||
| Tawfik, 2019 | 24 | 25 | ||
|
|
|
| 49/55 = | |
| 1:5 | Razmi, 2018 | 33 | 42 | |
| Tegta, 2006 | 1 | 10 | ||
| Bao, 2015 | 67 | 83 | ||
|
|
|
| 101/135 = | |
| 1:10 | Tawfik, 2019 | 6 | 26 | |
| Budania, 2012 | 26 | 28 | ||
| Mutalik, 2017 | 11 | 25 | ||
| Ramos, 2017 | 15 | 20 | ||
| Thakur, 2019 | 8 | 10 | ||
|
|
|
| 66/109 = | |
(a) *Chi‐squared test P = 0.000.
(b) *Chi‐squared test P = 0.006.
(c) *Chi‐squared test P = 0.158.
Figure 2Risk‐of‐bias assessment of randomized controlled trials. The risk‐of‐bias assessment of all 12 included RCTs are shown in this ‘traffic light’ plot accompanied by the explanation of the 5 domains of bias and risk judgement.