Cargando…

Safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective treatment for RA, the effects that bDMARDs have on integumentary, cardiac, and immune systems and the high c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mesa, Luz Estella, López, Josue Guillermo, López Quiceno, Lucas, Barrios Arroyave, Freddy, Halpert, Karolynn, Camacho, Jhyld C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10374120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37498842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284828
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective treatment for RA, the effects that bDMARDs have on integumentary, cardiac, and immune systems and the high costs associated with these treatments, make that mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies (MSCs) for RA are being considered potential treatment methods. This work analyses the performance in safety and efficacy terms of MSCs techniques. METHODS AND FINDING: A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases from inception to October 28, 2022. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized controlled trial (non-RCTs), including 358 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis; only RCTs were eligible for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Meta-analysis of adverse events (AE) in RCTs showed no significant differences in the incidence of AE in the MSCs group compared to the control group (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.58; I(2) = 58.80%). The pooled Risk ratio for non-serious and serious adverse events showed no statistical difference between intervention and control groups concerning the incidence of non-serious and serious adverse events (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.51; I(2) = 58.62%) and (Risk ratio: 1.10; 95% CI, 0.15 to 7.97; I(2) = 0.0%) respectively. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Disease Activity Score (DAS28) decreased in agreement with the decreasing values of C-reactive protein (CRP) and Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Additionally, a trend toward clinical efficacy was observed; however, this improvement was not shown in the studies after 12 months of follow-up without continuous treatment administration. CONCLUSION: This Systematic review and meta-analysis showed a favorable safety profile, without life-threatening events in subjects with RA, and a trend toward clinical efficacy that must be confirmed through high-quality RCTs, considerable sample size, and extended follow-up in subjects with RA.