Establishing delivery route-dependent safety and efficacy of living biodrug mesenchymal stem cells in heart failure patients

Abstract

Background: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as living biopharmaceuticals with unique properties, i.e., stemness, viability, phenotypes, paracrine activity, etc., need to be administered such that they reach the target site, maintaining these properties unchanged and are retained at the injury site to participate in the repair process. Route of delivery (RoD) remains one of the critical determinants of safety and efficacy. This study elucidates the safety and effectiveness of different RoDs of MSC treatment in heart failure (HF) based on phase II randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We hypothesize that the RoD modulates the safety and efficacy of MSC-based therapy and determines the outcome of the intervention.

Aim: To investigate the effect of RoD of MSCs on safety and efficacy in HF patients.

Methods: RCTs were retrieved from six databases. Safety endpoints included mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs), while efficacy outcomes encompassed changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (pro-BNP). Subgroup analyses on RoD were performed for all study endpoints.

Results: Twelve RCTs were included. Overall, MSC therapy demonstrated a significant decrease in mortality [relative risk (RR): 0.55, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.33-0.92, P = 0.02] compared to control, while SAE outcomes showed no significant difference (RR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.66-1.05, P = 0.11). RoD subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in SAE among the transendocardial (TESI) injection subgroup (RR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.54-0.95, P = 0.04). The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) demonstrated an overall significant improvement of LVEF by 2.44% (WMD: 2.44%, 95%CI: 0.80-4.29, P value ≤ 0.001), with only intracoronary (IC) subgroup showing significant improvement (WMD: 7.26%, 95%CI: 5.61-8.92, P ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, the IC delivery route significantly improved 6MWD by 115 m (WMD = 114.99 m, 95%CI: 91.48-138.50), respectively. In biochemical efficacy outcomes, only the IC subgroup showed a significant reduction in pro-BNP by -860.64 pg/mL (WMD: -860.64 pg/Ml, 95%CI: -944.02 to -777.26, P = 0.001).

Conclusion: Our study concluded that all delivery methods of MSC-based therapy are safe. Despite the overall benefits in efficacy, the TESI and IC routes provided better outcomes than other methods. Larger-scale trials are warranted before implementing MSC-based therapy in routine clinical practice.

Keywords: Clinical trial; Heart failure; Living biodrug; Mesenchymal stem cells; Meta-analysis; Stem cells; Systematic review.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow chart. RCT: Randomized controlled trials.

Figure 2

Relative risk of death between groups. IC: Intracoronary; IV: Intravenous injection; TEPI: Transepicardial injection; TESI: Transendocardial injection; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Figure 3

Relative risk of serious adverse events between groups. IC: Intracoronary; IV: Intravenous injection; TEPI: Transepicardial injection; TESI: Transendocardial injection; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Figure 4

Changes in left ventricular ejection fraction compared to baseline between groups. IC: Intracoronary; IV: Intravenous injection; TEPI: Transepicardial injection; TESI: Transendocardial injection; WMD: Weighted-mean difference; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Figure 5

Changes in 6-minute walking distance compared to baseline between groups. IC: Intracoronary; IV: Intravenous injection; TEPI: Transepicardial injection; TESI: Transendocardial injection; WMD: Weighted-mean difference; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Figure 6

Forest plot of changes in the pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (pg/mL) compared to baseline between groups. IC: Intracoronary; IV: Intravenous injection; TEPI: Transepicardial injection; TESI: Transendocardial injection; WMD: Weighted-mean difference; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.