Meta-Analysis: The Clinical Application of Autologous Adult Stem Cells in the Treatment of Stroke

Abstract

Introduction: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The disease is caused by reduced blood flow into the brain resulting in the sudden death of neurons. Limited spontaneous recovery might occur after stroke or brain injury, stem cell-based therapies have been used to promote these processes as there are no drugs currently on the market to promote brain recovery or neurogenesis. Adult stem cells (ASCs) have shown the ability of differentiation and regeneration and are well studied in literature. ASCs have also demonstrated safety in clinical application and, therefore, are currently being investigated as a promising alternative intervention for the treatment of stroke.

Methods: Eleven studies have been systematically selected and reviewed to determine if autologous adult stem cells are effective in the treatment of stroke. Collectively, 368 patients were enrolled across the 11 trials, out of which 195 received stem cell transplantation and 173 served as control. Using data collected from the clinical outcomes, a broad comparison and a meta-analysis were conducted by comparing studies that followed a similar study design.

Results: Improvement in patients' clinical outcomes was observed. However, the overall results showed no clinical significance in patients transplanted with stem cells than the control population.

Conclusion: Most of the trials were early phase studies that focused on safety rather than efficacy. Stem cells have demonstrated breakthrough results in the field of regenerative medicine. Therefore, study design could be improved in the future by enrolling a larger patient population and focusing more on localized delivery rather than intravenous transplantation. Trials should also introduce a more standardized method of analyzing and reporting clinical outcomes to achieve a better comparable outcome and possibly recognize the full potential that these cells have to offer.

Keywords: adult stem cells; autologous; clinical application; inflammation; meta-analysis; neurogenesis; stroke; stroke recovery; systematic review.

Figure 1

Schematic depicting the clinical application of different cells in stroke patients. The cells were delivered in one of three ways, intravenously, intra-arterially, or via stereotactic injections. Once administered, the cells play a role in providing paracrine signals and growth factors to facilitate angiogenesis and cell regeneration, immunomodulatory effects that serve to protect the neurons from further damage caused by inflammation, and finally, trans-differentiation of stem cells. Data from Dabrowska S, Andrzejewska A, Lukomska B, Janowski M. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 2

Schematic describing the role of mesenchymal stem cells in stroke. The cells release different growth factors, signals, and cytokines that serve to facilitate various functions. Through the release of cytokines, they can modulate inflammation and block apoptosis. The growth factors aid in promoting angiogenesis and neurogenesis. Data from Maleki M, Ghanbarvand F, Behvarz MR, Ejtemaei M, Ghadirkhomi E. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 3

Schematic representing an overview of the total number of patients enrolled in all 11 clinical trials and the number of patients administered with each type of adult stem cell.

Figure 4

Overview of clinical outcomes of the 11 clinical trials (N=368). (A) The chart shows the percentages of patients who have either improved, remained stable, deteriorated, or deceased. Some clinical trials are without a control arm. (B) The plot shows the overall percentage of patients that have improved after receiving either the stem cell treatment versus the standard of care. (C) The plot shows the overall percentage of patients that have remained stable and showed no clinical or functional improvement in the follow up period. (D) The plot shows the overall percentage of the patients whose condition has deteriorated in the follow up period.

Figure 5

Meta-analysis conducted using three comparable trials. (A) Meta-analysis conducted using four comparable trials (CT1, CT5, CT6, CT11) for the mRS test. (B) Meta-analysis conducted using four comparable trials (CT3, CT5, CT10, and CT11) for the BI test.