| Literature DB >> 36064604 |
Andreas Kerstan1, Kathrin Dieter2, Elke Niebergall-Roth3, Markus H Frank4,5,6,7, Mark A Kluth8,9, Sabrina Klingele3, Michael Jünger10, Christoph Hasslacher11, Georg Daeschlein10,12, Lutz Stemler13, Ulrich Meyer-Pannwitt14, Kristin Schubert15, Gerhard Klausmann16, Titus Raab17, Matthias Goebeler1, Korinna Kraft2, Jasmina Esterlechner3, Hannes M Schröder2, Samar Sadeghi3, Seda Ballikaya3, Martin Gasser18, Ana M Waaga-Gasser18,19, George F Murphy4, Dennis P Orgill20, Natasha Y Frank21,22,5,6, Christoph Ganss2,3, Karin Scharffetter-Kochanek23.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While rapid healing of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is highly desirable to avoid infections, amputations and life-threatening complications, DFUs often respond poorly to standard treatment. GMP-manufactured skin-derived ABCB5+ mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) might provide a new adjunctive DFU treatment, based on their remarkable skin wound homing and engraftment potential, their ability to adaptively respond to inflammatory signals, and their wound healing-promoting efficacy in mouse wound models and human chronic venous ulcers.Entities:
Keywords: ABCB5; Advanced-therapy medicinal product; Angiogenesis; Chronic wound; Diabetic foot ulcer; Mesenchymal stem cells; Wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36064604 PMCID: PMC9444095 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-022-03156-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 8.079
Fig. 1HIF-1α and VEGF expression by ABCB5+ MSCs during hypoxic culture. A Representative immunofluorescence staining of ABCB5+ MSCs revealing nuclear translocation of HIF-1α at 24 h. Nuclei were counterstained with DAPI. Scale bars: 20 µm. B HIF-1α mRNA expression by ABCB5+ MSCs from two donors, shown as fold expression from baseline (normoxic conditions, 0 h). Data are means + SD of three replicates. C VEGF mRNA expression by ABCB5+ MSCs, shown as fold expression from baseline (normoxic conditions, 0 h). Data are means + SD of three donors. D VEGF protein secretion by ABCB5+ MSCS, measured as VEGF protein concentration in culture supernatant. Data are means + SD of three replicates from a representative donor
Fig. 2Endothelial trans-differentiation of ABCB5+ MSCs. A Co-stimulation for 96 h with 200 ng/ml VEGF, 1000 ng/ml FGF-2 and 1000 ng/ml PDGF-BB elicited angiogenic trans-differentiation of ABCB5+ MSCs as revealed by CD31-positive (red) staining. B ABCB5+ MSCs cultured without growth factor supplementation served as negative control. C HUVECs served as positive control. D–F Proliferative activity of ABCB5+ MSCs stimulated to undergo endothelial trans-differentiation. D ABCB5+ MSCs were stimulated for 96 h with 200 ng/ml VEGF, 1000 ng/ml FGF-2 and 1000 ng/ml PDGF-BB. Proliferative activity was assessed by Ki67 staining (red). E ABCB5+ MSCs cultured without growth factor supplementation served as negative control. F HUVECs served as positive control. Nuclei were counterstained with DAPI (blue). Representative images of three independent experiments
Fig. 3Tube formation assays. A Human ABCB5+ MSCs and B HUVECs were cultured for 18–20 h on Geltrex™ matrix. Calcein staining (green) demonstrates viability (i.e., metabolic activity) of tubular structure-forming cells
Fig. 4Blood flow recovery and neovascularization following surgically induced HLI in OF1 mice. A Representative LDPI acquisition before and immediately after HLI induction, illustrating the experimental setup. Scanned areas are marked by ellipses; the warmest color (intense red) represents 200 perfusion units. Graphs show mean perfusion unit during 1 min in the non-ischemic (blue) and ischemic (red) thigh. B LPDI ratio between the ischemic and the non-ischemic limb in mice treated with 5 × 106 ABCB5+ MSCs or vehicle. Means with SD of n = 10 (day 1), n = 9 (day 3), n = 8 (day 5; days 7–21 MSCs) and n = 7 (days 7–21 vehicle) animals. C–F Immunohistochemical and histopathological evaluation of the ischemic hindlimb muscles at 6 days after HLI induction in mice treated with ABCB5+ MSCs or vehicle injected into the ischemic limb 24 h after surgery. C CD31 expression in the thigh muscles, presented as mean (SD) IHC score, with 0 = none, 1 = minimal, 2 = slight, and 3 = moderate, of n = 12 animals. D Representative H&E sections of the gastrocnemius muscle from a vehicle- and an MSC-treated mouse, showing inflammatory and degenerative lesions in both mice and increased neovascularization in the MSC-treated mouse. Scale bars: 50 µm. E Degenerative and inflammatory processes in the gastrocnemius muscle, presented as mean (SD) summary score according to ISO 10993–6:2007 of n = 6 (vehicle) and n = 7 (MSCs) animals. F Neovascularization in the gastrocnemius muscle, presented as mean (SD) score, with 0 = none, 1 = 1–3 focal buds, 2 = groups of 4–7 capillaries with supporting fibroblastic structures, 3 = broad band and 4 = extensive band of capillaries with supporting fibroblastic structures, of n = 6 (vehicle) and n = 7 (MSCs) animals. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 versus baseline (B) or vehicle (C, E, F); one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s post hoc test
Fig. 5Trial design, study patients and wound surface area during screening. A Schematic representation of the trial design. aOnly patients who did not reach month-12 visit before 30 June 2020 and were not scheduled for a planned safety follow-up visit in June 2020 were subjected to an end-of-study visit. B Study patient flow chart. EoS visit, end-of-study visit [see (a)]. C Percent reduction of wound surface area during a ≥ 6-week screening period (median 49 days, range 42–68 days; except for one outlier, whose screening period lasted 118 days, denoted by an asterisk). Error bar represents median and interquartile range
Baseline characteristics of all treated patients
| Variable | Full analysis set ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | Median (range) | 62 (49–79) |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 20 (87) | |
| Female | 3 (13) | |
| Body weight, kg | Median (range) | 105 (71–141) |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | Median (range) | 33 (26–44) |
| Target wound surface area, cm2 | Median (range) | 2.6 (1.0–15.2) |
| Ankle-brachial index | Median (range) | 1.1 (0.8–2.0) |
| Hemoglobin A1c, % | Median (range) | 7.2 (5.0–9.8) |
Fig. 6Wound healing progress during the treatment and efficacy follow-up period. Shown are three representative patients in the subgroup of responders. All patients had consented to publication of the photographs
Fig. 7Wound surface area reduction in DFU patients treated with ABCB5+ MSCs. A–B Percent wound surface area reduction from baseline during the treatment and efficacy follow-up period in the full analysis set (A) and per-protocol set (B). Patients who presented with wound surface area reductions of at least 30% from baseline (indicated by light green dashed lines) at week 12 were considered responders. Error bars indicate median and interquartile range; p values (two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test) indicate statistical significance of changes from baseline. C Tukey’s boxplots of the primary efficacy outcome parameter, % wound surface area reduction from baseline at week 12, in the full analysis set (FAS, N = 23), per-protocol set (PP, N = 20) and responders (i.e., patients who presented with at least 30% wound surface area at week 12; N = 17). D-E Kaplan–Meier plots for the time to full wound closure (D) and first 30% surface area reduction (E) in the FAS, PP and responders. Patients without event were censored at the date of the last available wound surface area assessment (indicated by small vertical ticks). Vertical dashed lines indicate median time to event (not reached for full wound closure)
Summary of the main secondary efficacy outcomes
| Parameter | Full analysis set | Per-protocol set | Sourcea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute wound surface area reduction | |||
| Change from baseline at week 12 (cm2)b | 1.7 (0.3–2.8) | 2.0 (0.9–2.9) | Additional file |
| Complete wound closure | |||
| Patients with complete closure at week 12, | 6 (26) | 6 (30) | Additional file |
| Patients with complete closure at any time up to week 12, (%) | 6 (26) | 6 (30) | Additional file |
| Time to complete closure, daysc | Not reached | Not reached | Figure |
| ≥ 30% wound surface area reduction | |||
| Patients with ≥ 30% reduction at week 12 (“Responders”), | 17 (74) | 17 (85) | Additional file |
| Patients with ≥ 30% reduction at any time up to week 12, | 19 (83) | 18 (90) | Additional file |
| Time to ≥ 30% reduction, daysc | 27 (14; 30) | 22 (14; 30) | Figure |
| Reopening after complete wound closure | |||
| Patients with wounds reopened at week 12, | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | n.a |
| Exudation | |||
| Wounds with low exudation, | |||
| Day 0 | 10 (44) | 7 (35) | Additional file |
| Week 12 | 12 (52) | 10 (50) | Additional file |
| Wounds with moderate exudation, | |||
| Day 0 | 11 (48) | 11 (55) | Additional file |
| Week 12 | 10 (44) | 9 (45) | Additional file |
| Amputation at target leg | |||
| Patients with amputation, | 1 (4) | 1 (5) | n.a |
| Time to amputation, days | 42 | 42 | n.a |
| Pain scoreb | |||
| Day 0 | 1 (0–3) | n.a | Additional file |
| Week 12 | 1 (0–2) | n.a | Additional file |
| Quality of lifed | |||
| Dermatology Life Quality Indexb | |||
| Day 0 | 6 (1–12) | n.a | Additional file |
| Week 12 | 4 (0–10) | n.a | Additional file |
n.a. not applicable
aDetailed results are given in Additional file 1: Tables S7–S11
bMedian (interquartile range)
cMedian (95%-CI)
dDue to space limitations, SF-36 subscale scores (which remained virtually unchanged during the efficacy follow-up) are not shown here but given in Additional file 1: Table S11
The median percentage wound surface area reduction was already statistically significant (p < 0.001) at 2 weeks and, except for the week-6 assessment (which was, however, missed by 4 patients), increased further over time (Fig. 7A, B)
Fig. 8Assessment of potential influences of baseline patient characteristic, baseline wound size and wound surface area reduction during the screening period on response to treatment. Baseline patient characteristics and baseline wound surface area in all treated patients, responders and non-responders. A–B Comparisons of baseline patient characteristics (A) and of wound surface area reduction during screening and of wound surface area at baseline (B) between all treated patients, responders and non-responders. Depicted are Tukey’s boxplots (except for gender ratio); n = 23 (all patients; ankle-brachial index: n = 22), n = 17 (responders; ankle-brachial index: n = 16), n = 6 (non-responders). Kruskal–Wallis tests followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between groups (p > 0.999 for all comparisons except for ankle-brachial index responders vs. non-responders: p = 0.697). C Spearman’s rank correlation analysis between wound surface area reduction during screening and wound surface area reduction from baseline at week 12. *Asterisk denotes a patient whose screening period lasted 118 days, as compared to 42–68 days (median 49 days) for the other patients
Adverse events (SAS)
| Event | Number of events | Number (%) of patients |
|---|---|---|
| Any adverse eventa | 120 | 21 (91) |
| Any TEAE | 93 | 20 (87) |
| Any serious TEAE | 12 | 10 (43) |
| Any treatment-related TEAE | 0 | 0 (0) |
| Frequent TEAEs by MedDRA system organ classb | ||
| General disorders and administration site conditions | 3 (13) | |
| Edema peripheral | 2 (9) | |
| Infections and infestations | 15 (65) | |
| Infected skin ulcer | 6 (26) | |
| Localized infection | 4 (17) | |
| Nasopharyngitis | 4 (17) | |
| Wound infection | 2 (9) | |
| Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | 5 (22) | |
| Ligament sprain | 2 (9) | |
| Metabolism and nutrition disorders | 4 (17) | |
| Hyperglycemia | 2 (9) | |
| Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 4 (17) | |
| Arthralgia | 2 (9) | |
| Back pain | 2 (9) | |
| Pain in extremity | 3 (13) | |
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | 11 (48) | |
| Blisters | 6 (26) | |
| Skin ulcer | 4 (17) | |
MedDRA Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities; TEAE Treatment-emergent adverse event; SAS Safety analysis set (N = 23)
aIncludes pretreatment-emergent (occurring between giving written consent and first cell application) and treatment-emergent (occurring between first cell application and end of safety follow-up) adverse events
bOnly TEAEs that were reported by at least 2 patients