A Scoping Review of Registered Clinical Trials of Cellular Therapy for COVID-19 and a Framework for Accelerated Synthesis of Trial Evidence-FAST Evidence

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cell therapy for COVID-19: global clinical trial landscape, published safety/efficacy outcomes, cell product manufacturing and clinical delivery

During the pandemic of severe respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), many novel therapeutic modalities to treat Coronavirus 2019 induced disease (COVID-19) were explored. This study summarizes 195 clinical trials of advanced cell therapies targeting COVID-19 that were registered over the two years between January 2020 to December 2021. In addition, this work also analyzed the cell manufacturing and clinical delivery experience of 26 trials that published their outcomes by July 2022. Our demographic analysis found the highest number of cell therapy trials for COVID-19 was in United States, China, and Iran (N=53, 43, and 19, respectively), with the highest number per capita in Israel, Spain, Iran, Australia, and Sweden (N=0.641, 0.232, 0,223, 0.194, and 0.192 trials per million inhabitants). The leading cell types were multipotent mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs), natural killer (NK) cells, and mononuclear cells (MNCs), accounting for 72%, 9%, and 6% of the studies, respectively. There were 24 published clinical trials that reported on infusions of MSCs. A pooled analysis of these MSC studies found that MSCs provide a relative risk reduction for all-cause COVID-19 mortality of RR=0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.85). This result corroborates previously published smaller meta-analyses, which suggested that MSC therapy demonstrated a clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients. The sources of the MSCs used in these studies and their manufacturing and clinical delivery methods were remarkably heterogeneous, with some predominance of perinatal tissue-derived products. Our results highlight the important role that cell therapy products may play as an adjunct therapy in the management of COVID-19 and its related complications, as well as the importance of controlling key manufacturing parameters to ensure comparability between studies. Thus, we support ongoing calls for a global registry of clinical studies with MSC products that could better link cell product manufacturing and delivery methods to clinical outcomes. Although advanced cell therapies may provide an important adjunct treatment for patients affected by COVID-19 in the near future, preventing pathology through vaccination still remains the best protection to date. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of advanced cell therapy clinical trials as potential novel treatment for COVID-19 (resulting from SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection), including analysis of the global clinical trial landscape, published safety/efficacy outcomes (RR/OR), and details on cell product manufacturing and clinical delivery. This study had a 2-year observation interval from start of January 2020 to end of December 2021, including a follow-up period until end of July to identify published outcomes, which covers the most vivid period of clinical trial activity, and is also the longest observation period studied until today. In total, we identified 195 registered advanced cell therapy studies for COVID-19, employing 204 individual cell products. Leading registered trial activity was attributed to the USA, China, and Iran. Through the end of July 2022, 26 clinical trials were published, with 24 out of 26 articles employing intravenous infusions (IV) of mesenchymal stromal/stem cell (MSC) products. Most of the published trials were attributed to China and Iran. The cumulative results from the 24 published studies employing infusions of MSCs indicated an improved survival (RR=0.63 with 95% Confidence Interval 0.46 to 0.85). Our study is the most comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on cell therapy trials for COVID-19 conducted to date, clearly identifying the USA, China, and Iran as leading advanced cell therapy trial countries for COVID-19, with further strong contributions from Israel, Spain, Australia and Sweden. Although advanced cell therapies may provide an important adjunct treatment for patients affected by COVID-19 in the future, preventing pathology through vaccination remains the best protection.

Registered clinical trials investigating treatment with cell-derived extracellular vesicles: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AIMS

Interest in cell-based therapy using extracellular vesicles (EVs) is intensifying, building upon promising preclinical research and a handful of published clinical studies. Registered clinical trials remain small, heterogeneous in design and underpowered to determine safety and efficacy on their own. A scoping review of registered studies can identify opportunities to pool data and perform meta-analysis.

METHODS

Registered trials were identified by searching clinical trial databases (Clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) on June 10, 2022.

RESULTS

Seventy-three trials were identified and included for analysis. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) were the most common cell type from which EVs were derived (49 studies, 67%). Among the 49 identified MSC-EV studies, 25 were controlled trials (51%) with a combined total of 3094 participants anticipated to receive MSC-derived EVs (2225 in controlled studies). Although EVs are being administered to treat a broad range of conditions, trials treating patients with coronavirus disease-2019 and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome were observed most commonly. Despite heterogeneity between studies, we anticipate that at least some of the studies could be combined in meaningful meta-analysis and that a combined sample size of 1000 patients would provide the ability to detect a ≥5% difference in mortality with MSC-EVs compared to controls and could be achieved by December 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identifies potential barriers that may stall clinical translation of EV-based treatment, and our analysis calls for more standardized product characterization, use of quantifiable product quality attributes and consistent outcome reporting in future clinical trials.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of mesenchymal stromal cells to treat coronavirus disease 2019: is it too late?

BACKGROUND AIMS

Evidence regarding the extent that mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been limited by marked inter-study heterogeneity, inconsistent product characterization and appreciable risk of bias (RoB). Given the evolution of treatment options and trajectory of the pandemic, an updated analysis of high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed for a timely and conclusive understanding of the effectiveness of MSCs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search through March 30, 2022, identified all English language, full-text randomized controlled trials examining the use of MSCs in the treatment of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified (316 patients, 165 administered MSCs and 151 controls). Controls evolved significantly over time with a broad range of comparison treatments. All studies reported mortality at study endpoint. Random effects meta-analysis revealed that MSCs decreased relative risk of death (risk ratio, 0.63, 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.94, P = 0.02, I² = 14%) with no significant difference in absolute risk of death. MSCs decreased length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels and increased odds of clinical improvement at study endpoint compared with controls. Rates of adverse events and severe adverse events were similar between MSC and control groups. Only two (25%) studies reported all four International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy criteria for MSC characterization. Included studies had low (n = 7) or some (n = 1) concerns regarding RoB.

CONCLUSIONS

MSCs may reduce risk of death in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 and improve secondary clinical outcomes. Variable outcome reporting, inconsistent product characterization and variable control group treatments remain barriers to higher-quality evidence and may constrain clinical usage. A master protocol is proposed and appears necessary for accelerated translation of higher-quality evidence for future applications of MSC therapy.

Updated Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells to Treat COVID-19: A Framework for Accelerated Synthesis of Trial Evidence for Rapid Approval-FASTER Approval

Background

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19; however, early evidence is based on few studies with marked interstudy heterogeneity. The second iteration of our living systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates a framework needed for synthesizing evidence from high-quality studies to accelerate consideration for approval.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature was conducted on November 15, 2021, to identify all English-language, full-text, and controlled clinical studies examining MSCs to treat COVID-19 (PROSPERO: CRD42021225431).

Findings

Eleven studies were identified (403 patients with severe and/or critical COVID-19, including 207 given MSCs and 196 controls). All 11 studies reported mortality and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased relative risk of death at study endpoint (RR: 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]) and RR of death at 28 days after treatment (0.19 [95% CI], 0.05-0.78) compared to controls. MSCs also decreased length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD: −3.97 days [95% CI, −6.09 to −1.85], n = 5 studies) and increased oxygenation levels at study endpoint compared to controls (MD: 105.62 mmHg O₂ [95% CI, 73.9-137.3,], n = 3 studies). Only 2 of 11 studies reported on all International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) criteria for MSC characterization. Included randomized controlled trials were found to have some concerns (n = 2) to low (n = 4) risk of bias (RoB), while all non-randomized studies were found to have moderate (n = 5) RoB.

Interpretation

Our updated living systematic review concludes that MSCs can likely reduce mortality in patients with severe or critical COVID-19. A master protocol based on our Faster Approval framework appears necessary to facilitate the more accelerated accumulation of high-quality evidence that would reduce RoB, improve consistency in product characterization, and standardize outcome reporting.

Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.

DESIGN

Rapid scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.

SETTING

Hospital and community care.

PARTICIPANTS

COVID-19 patients of all ages.

INTERVENTIONS

COVID-19 treatment.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for COVID-19: First iteration of a living systematic review and meta-analysis: MSCs and COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

All English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I² = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.22; P = .004; I² = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality.

CONCLUSION

Use of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.

Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.

Mesenchymal stromal cells as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have significant immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities, mediated partly by conditioned media or through secreted extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can cause mild to life-threatening illness due to activated immune responses that may be dampened by MSCs or their secretome. Many clinical studies of MSCs have been launched since the beginning of the global pandemic, however, few have been completed and most lack power to assess efficacy. Repeated systematic searches and meta-analyses are needed to understand, in real time, the extent of potential benefit in different patient populations as the evidence emerges.

METHODS

This living systematic review will be maintained to provide up-to-date information as the pandemic evolves. A systematic literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed. All clinical studies (e.g., randomized, pseudorandomized and non-randomized controlled trials, uncontrolled trials, and case series) employing MSCs or their secretome as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19 will be included. Patients must have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Study screening and data extraction will be performed in duplicate. Information concerning interventions, patient populations, methods of MSC isolation and characterization, primary and secondary clinical and/or laboratory outcomes, and adverse events will be extracted. Key clinical outcomes will be pooled through random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of MSCs and their secreted products for COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review and subsequent updates will inform the scientific, medical, and health policy communities as the pandemic evolves to guide decisions on the appropriate use of MSC-related products to treat COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD 42021225431.

Meta approaches in knowledge synthesis in nursing: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the bibliometric patterns of meta-approaches use in nursing research literature.

METHODS

Descriptive, exploratory and historical bibliometrics analyses were used. The papers were harvested from the Web of Science Core Collection.

FINDINGS

The search resulted in 2065 publications. The trends in using most individual meta approaches show that the use of meta-analysis is increasing exponentially, the use of meta-synthesis is increasing linearly, while the use of meta-ethnography is constant in last 6 years. Most productive countries were United States of America, United Kingdom and Peoples Republic of China. Most publications were published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, International Journal of Nursing Studies, and Journal of Clinical Nursing. Twenty-seven percent of all publications were funded. Thirty-four meta approaches were identified.

DISCUSSION

The study revealed that the trend in the literature production is positive. Research community use of meta-approaches in nursing exhibit considerable growth. Regional concentration of literature production was observed.