AbstractSevere cases of COVID-19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo-capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID-19-infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, alveolo-capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.Significance statement The potential benefits of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome support the rapid commencement of clinical trials, as well as the compassionate use of MSCs that already have documented safety profiles from FDA-approved studies.
What's in Your CART? Clinical insights on challenges in mononuclear cell collection for CAR‐T therapy
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are becoming an increasingly popular therapeutic option among patients with a broad range of ailments to modulate immunity and induce regeneration. The majority of patients receiving these MSC therapies are on concurrent medication or have ongoing infection. In the present study, we examined the effect of immunosuppressive drugs and lipopolysaccharides (LPS)/endotoxins on the secretory profile, migration towards site of injury, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation of bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs). Generally, LPS coculture augmented the secretory capacity of BMSCs while exposure to immunosuppressive drugs resulted primarily in no change or attenuated secretion, with some cases of increased secretion, dependent on the cytokine assayed. Among the immunosuppressants evaluated, Hydrocortisone had the most widespread inhibitory effect, while LPS from E. coli O111:B4 had the most potent stimulatory effect. In addition, we also showed that Hydrocortisone or LPS from E. coli O111:B4 affected the migratory and immunosuppressive capacity of BMSCs. Following simulation with Hydrocortisone, BMSC migration was attenuated, and immunosuppressive capacity against T cell proliferation was enhanced, however, the opposite effects were seen with LPS from E. coli O111:B4. Our data suggests that the clinical outcomes of MSC-based therapy are affected by the use of immunosuppressive medication or the presence of endotoxemia in patients.
Impact of good and poor mobilizers on hematopoietic progenitor cell collection efficiency and product quality
AbstractBackgroundMobilization regimen choice is a significant contributing factor for successful hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) collection by leukocytapheresis and reaching the target CD34+ cell dose. How mobilization regimen affects collection efficiency and the quality of products collected using the Spectra Optia apheresis instrument is not fully known.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (GCSF) and GCSF/plerixafor mobilization regimens on CE and product composition. We studied 373 leukocytapheresis HPC collections for 147 autologous transplants from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014. Patients were categorized in two groups; good mobilizers, mobilized with GCSF only (GM) and poor mobilizers, mobilized with GCSF and Plerixafor (PM).ResultsOverall, compared with PM group, total nucleated cell (TNC) yield was significantly lower in GM group (P = <.001). In contrast, median percent mononuclear cell (MNC) collected from GM (86.5%) was significantly higher than products collected from PM group (79.5%; P < .001). Compared with GM group, CD34+ cell CE was about 10% lower in PM group (P < .008). In addition, daily CD34+ cell/Kg yield was significantly higher in GM (2.08 × 10/Kg) compared with PM group (1.64 x 10/Kg, P = .019). Overall, the median number of collections per patient was two for GM and three for PM (P = .004).ConclusionProducts collected from PM group contained higher TNC content relative to GM group but had lower MNC enrichment, CD34+ cell CE and daily CD34+ cell yield per Kg.