Current evidence of the efficacy of cell-based therapies in heart failure

Persistence and proliferation of human mesenchymal stromal cells in the right ventricular myocardium after intracoronary injection in a large animal model of pulmonary hypertension

BACKGROUND AIMS

In this study, we demonstrate long-term persistence of human mesenchymal stromal cells (hMSCs) after intracoronary injection in a large animal model of pulmonary hypertension (PH).

METHODS

Commercially available placenta-derived hMSCs were used. Experiments were conducted on 14 female Yorkshire swine. Four animals served as controls, and 10 underwent pulmonary vein (PV) banding. After 12 ± 2 weeks, PH and PV dysfunction were confirmed by right heart catheterization and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. hMSCs were injected in the marginal branch of the right coronary artery. Tissues were harvested 6, 9 or 24 days after infusion.

RESULTS

After 12 ± 2 weeks after PV banding, all subjects had increased mean pulmonary artery pressure (13.6 ± 3.6 versus 30.8 ± 4.5 mm Hg, P < 0.007) and a decrease in right ventricular ejection fraction from 51.7 ± 5.7% versus 30.5 ± 11.3% (P = 0.003). Intracoronary injection of hMSCs was well tolerated. Up to 24 days after hMSC injection, immunohistochemistry revealed extravascular viable human CD105⁺ mononuclear cells in the right ventricle (RV) that were Ki67⁺. This was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. CD45⁺ porcine inflammatory cells were identified, commonly seen adjacent to areas of healing microscopic infarction that likely dated to the time of the original hMSC injection. Anti-CD31 staining produced strong signals in areas of injected hMSCs. Immunohistochemistry staining for vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 showed upregulation in the clusters, where mononuclear cells were located.

CONCLUSIONS

hMSCs injected via intracoronary infusion survived up to 24 days and demonstrated proliferative capacity. hMSCs can persist long term in the RV and are potential cell source for tissue repair in RV dysfunction.

Stem cell therapy for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND

A promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

The critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).Cell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.

[Cell therapies for cardiopathies: the shift of paradigms]

Heart failure is a major concern for public health systems, and several approaches of cellular therapy are being investigated with the goal of improving the function of these failing hearts. Many cell types have been used (skeletal myoblasts, hematopoietic, endothelial or mesenchymal progenitors, cardiac cells…), most often in the indication of post-ischemic heart failure rather than in the indication of genetic dilated cardiomyopathy. It is easier, indeed, to target a restricted area than the whole myocardium. Several clinical trials have reported slight but encouraging functional benefits, but their interpretations were frequently limited by the small sizes of cohorts, and by the biological variabilities inherent to the patients status and to the biology of the cells. These trials also shed light on unexpected mechanisms of action of the cells, which are changing the concepts and methodologies of the studies. The functional benefits observed would be due, indeed, to the secretion of trophic factors by the cells, instead of their true structural and mechanical integration within the myocardial tissue. Accordingly, the new generations of clinical trials aim at improving the size and homogeneity of the patient cohorts to increase the statistical power. On the other hand, several studies are associating or conditionning cells with biomaterials or cocktails of cytokines to improve their survival and their biological efficacy. In parallel, bio-engineering investigates several ways to support cells in vitro and in vivo, to sustain the architectural structure of the failing myocardium, to produce ex vivo some true substitutive cardiac tissue, or to purely replace the cells by their active secreted products. Several therapeutic devices should emerge from these researches, and the choice of their respective use will be ultimately guided by the medical indication.

Meta-Analyses of Human Cell-Based Cardiac Regeneration Therapies: What Can Systematic Reviews Tell Us About Cell Therapies for Ischemic Heart Disease?

Controversies from basic science, discrepancies from clinical trials, and divergent results from meta-analyses have recently arisen in the field of cell therapies for cardiovascular repair and regeneration. Noticeably, there are almost as many systematic reviews and meta-analyses published as there are well-conducted clinical studies. But how do we disentangle the confusion they have raised? This article addresses why results obtained from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of human cell-based cardiac regeneration therapies are still valid to inform the design of future clinical trials. It also addresses how meta-analyses are not free from limitations and how important it is to assess the quality of the evidence and the quality of the systematic reviews and finally how stronger conclusions can be drawn when several pieces of evidence converge.