Sathish Muthu1,2,3, Ayaz Ali Mir3,4, Rakesh Kumar5, Vijendra Yadav6, Madhan Jeyaraman2,3,5, Manish Khanna3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Department of Biotechnology, School of Engineering and Technology, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Indian Stem Cell Study Group (ISCSG) Association, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Fellow in Orthopaedic Rheumatology, Dr. RML National Law University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. 6. Department of Orthopaedics, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify the clinically significant ideal Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) count in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) available in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library till August 2021 for RCTs conducted in the management of knee osteoarthritis using MSC therapy specifying the quantity of MSCs delivered. We categorized the studies based on the MSC count utilized in them into four groups namely <1 × 107 MSCs (Group I), 1-5x107 MSCs (Group II), 5-10 × 107 MSCs (Group III), and >10 × 107 MSCs (Group IV). Visual Analog Score (VAS) for Pain, Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta [Analyst] software. RESULTS: 14 studies involving 564 patients were included for analysis. We noted incremental decrease in the VAS with increasing dosage of MSCs at 12 months [Group I,WMD = 2.641(p = 0.854); Group II, WMD = -4.853(p = 0.379); Group III, WMD = -12.154 (p = 0.316); Group IV, WMD = -15.935(p = 0.116)], and 24 months [Group I,WMD = -6(p = 0.001); Group II, WMD = -15(p = 0.001); Group IV, WMD = -20(p = 0.001)]. We also noted incremental improvement in the WOMAC, KOOS with increasing dosage of MSCs at 12 months [Group I, WMD = 7(p = 0.001); Group II, WMD = 28(p = 0.001); Group IV, WMD = 30(p = 0.001)] and [Group II, WMD = -2.562(p = 0.676); Group III, WMD = 7.670(p = 0.099); Group IV, WMD = 13.475(p = 0.261)] respectively. However, we noted significant reduction in the Lysholm score in Group IV, compared to the others at 12 months (WMD = -12.5, 95%CI[-25.883,0.883]) and 24 months (WMD = -6.6, 95%CI[-23.596,10.396]). We did not find any significant increase in the adverse events with incremental dosage of MSCs in any of the groups compared. CONCLUSION: Compared to the four dosage groups of MSCs analyzed, Group III showed consistent significant improvement in pain and functional outcomes analyzed compared to the other groups. Hence, we recommend a cell volume of 5-10 × 107 cells to be delivered to the target site to obtain superior benefits out of the procedure. However, we urge future trials of sufficient quality to validate our findings to arrive at a consensus on the ideal count of MSCs to be delivered in the cellular therapy for knee osteoarthritis.
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify the clinically significant ideal Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) count in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) available in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library till August 2021 for RCTs conducted in the management of knee osteoarthritis using MSC therapy specifying the quantity of MSCs delivered. We categorized the studies based on the MSC count utilized in them into four groups namely <1 × 107 MSCs (Group I), 1-5x107 MSCs (Group II), 5-10 × 107 MSCs (Group III), and >10 × 107 MSCs (Group IV). Visual Analog Score (VAS) for Pain, Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta [Analyst] software. RESULTS: 14 studies involving 564 patients were included for analysis. We noted incremental decrease in the VAS with increasing dosage of MSCs at 12 months [Group I,WMD = 2.641(p = 0.854); Group II, WMD = -4.853(p = 0.379); Group III, WMD = -12.154 (p = 0.316); Group IV, WMD = -15.935(p = 0.116)], and 24 months [Group I,WMD = -6(p = 0.001); Group II, WMD = -15(p = 0.001); Group IV, WMD = -20(p = 0.001)]. We also noted incremental improvement in the WOMAC, KOOS with increasing dosage of MSCs at 12 months [Group I, WMD = 7(p = 0.001); Group II, WMD = 28(p = 0.001); Group IV, WMD = 30(p = 0.001)] and [Group II, WMD = -2.562(p = 0.676); Group III, WMD = 7.670(p = 0.099); Group IV, WMD = 13.475(p = 0.261)] respectively. However, we noted significant reduction in the Lysholm score in Group IV, compared to the others at 12 months (WMD = -12.5, 95%CI[-25.883,0.883]) and 24 months (WMD = -6.6, 95%CI[-23.596,10.396]). We did not find any significant increase in the adverse events with incremental dosage of MSCs in any of the groups compared. CONCLUSION: Compared to the four dosage groups of MSCs analyzed, Group III showed consistent significant improvement in pain and functional outcomes analyzed compared to the other groups. Hence, we recommend a cell volume of 5-10 × 107 cells to be delivered to the target site to obtain superior benefits out of the procedure. However, we urge future trials of sufficient quality to validate our findings to arrive at a consensus on the ideal count of MSCs to be delivered in the cellular therapy for knee osteoarthritis.
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Jelena Savović; Matthew J Page; Roy G Elbers; Natalie S Blencowe; Isabelle Boutron; Christopher J Cates; Hung-Yuan Cheng; Mark S Corbett; Sandra M Eldridge; Jonathan R Emberson; Miguel A Hernán; Sally Hopewell; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Daniela R Junqueira; Peter Jüni; Jamie J Kirkham; Toby Lasserson; Tianjing Li; Alexandra McAleenan; Barnaby C Reeves; Sasha Shepperd; Ian Shrier; Lesley A Stewart; Kate Tilling; Ian R White; Penny F Whiting; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-08-28
Authors: C Thomas Vangsness; Jack Farr; Joel Boyd; David T Dellaero; C Randal Mills; Michelle LeRoux-Williams Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ioanna K Bolia; Sofia Bougioukli; William J Hill; Nicholas A Trasolini; Frank A Petrigliano; Jay R Lieberman; Alexander E Weber Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Caroline Gavin; Stephan Meinke; Nina Heldring; Kathleen Anne Heck; Adnane Achour; Ellen Iacobaeus; Petter Höglund; Katarina Le Blanc; Nadir Kadri Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 7.561