Zubair, Abba C.

AbstractDrug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) is characterized by recurrent seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication (ASM). Due to their regenerative and immunomodulatory potential, therapies with biologics such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) offer a potential therapeutic benefit for structural causes of epilepsy, such as hippocampal sclerosis. In this article, we report a systematic review of the literature evaluating the preclinical and clinical studies of MSCs for DRE. Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Databases were searched electronically from their dates of inception to November 2021 using the following keywords: ((“mesenchymal”) AND (“stem cell”)) AND ((“epilepsy”) OR (“convulsion”) OR (“seizures”)). This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The initial query identified 488 studies representing 323 unique manuscripts. After application of selection criteria, 15 studies were included in this systematic review; 11 were preclinical studies and 4 were clinical studies. All preclinical studies were performed in rodents and all clinical studies were phase 1 trials. Thus far, therapy with MSCs appears to be safe for use in humans, as no severe adverse events related directly to the therapy were reported. Furthermore, MSC therapy appears to provide a statistically significant clinical benefit by reducing the seizure burden of patients, reducing the electrophysiological biomarkers of epilepsy, and improving their comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety. In addition, animal studies reveal that the therapy exerts its effect by reducing aberrant mossy fiber sprouting (reduce excitatory pathways) and increasing γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic interneurons (increase inhibitory pathways). Both preclinical and clinical studies have shown MSC therapy to be safe and preliminary effective, thus warranting further studies to investigate its therapeutic potential.

AbstractBackgroundChimeric antigen receptor T (CAR‐T) cell successes have encouraged continued clinical study. Apheresis collection of starting material for CAR‐T cell therapy product manufacturing is critical but described approaches suggest variability and clinical guidelines are currently lacking. The goal of this study was to gather and assess variability in apheresis collection descriptions in publicly available CAR T‐cell therapy clinical trials.Study designWe searched clinicaltrials.gov (a publicly available clinical trial database) for “chimeric antigen receptor T cells” on July 01, 2020 and studies accessed July 30, 2020‐August 15, 2020. Data collected included date posted, study characteristics, apheresis mentions (number, location, and context), laboratory parameters and transfusion allowances. Apheresis context was analyzed using a qualitative inductive approach of grounded theory method with open coding. Text was classified into 37 context codes, grouped into 12 categories, and then consolidated into patient, procedure, product, and miscellaneous themes.ResultsApheresis was mentioned 1044 times in 322 (51.9%) of 621 total studies. Laboratory parameters mentioned included white blood cells (100 studies), absolute neutrophil count (220 studies), absolute lymphocyte count (102 studies), CD3+ cell (38 studies), hemoglobin (233 studies, 54 studies specified transfusion allowance), and platelet (269 studies, 48 studies specified transfusion allowance).ConclusionsApheresis collection of CAR‐T cell products is not well‐defined in clinical study descriptions and the context is inconsistent. Laboratory parameters useful for apheresis collection are variably present and do not consistently align with current practices. Further exploration, and clinical guideline development will encourage alignment of apheresis collections for CAR‐T cell products.

Abstract Background: AHCT is a standard of care treatment for eligible patients (pts) with MM. Most consensus guidelines recommend that at the time of first AHCT, enough APBHC should be collected to perform two AHCT. However, recent studies have shown that with each decade after 1990, the use of cryopreserved APBHC for a salvage AHCT has declined and is now in the range of 4.6-15% in the decade between 2010-2018. The collection and storage of APBHC for two AHCT incurs additional costs and a prior single center cost analysis revealed that having had collected for just one AHCT in a cohort of 726 MM pts would have saved 3.8 million USD between 1993 and 2011. 1 Most centers that perform AHCT for MM pts continue to collect and store PBAHC for 2 AHCT. Herein we evaluate utilization trends and costs associated with cryopreserved APBHC in patients with MM. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathologic data from 440 patients with MM who underwent APBHC mobilization and collection at Mayo Clinic Florida between 2010 and 2019. The number of apheresis/collection sessions and APBHC product collection yields were determined for patients who were mobilized by any method. We estimated the costs involved in PBSC collection (apheresis) and cryopreservation storage based on our institution-specific charges as of May 2021. The cost of 1 session of APBHC collection/apheresis was $4,680 and the cost of 1 year of APBHC cryopreservation was $4,790 per patient. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP Pro 15 (SAS). Chi-square and Fischer exact tests were used to carry out univariate analysis for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum/Kruskal Wallis for continuous variables. Results: Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. 440 pts underwent at least one collection session and 347 underwent at least 1 AHCT. The median number of mobilization sessions was 1 (95% CI 1.0-1.03), the median number of collection/apheresis sessions was 2.0 (95% CI 2.39-2.59), 84.3% (n=371) required ≥1 collection session. The median number of CD34 stem cells collected was 7.6 x10 6 (95% CI 7.76-8.19 x10 6), and the median number of infused CD34 cells was 4 x10 6(95% CI 4.13-4.37x10 6). The median cost of total collection sessions (defined as # of apheresis/collection sessions x $4,680) was $9,360 per pt (95% CI $11,181-$12,100). The median cost of cryopreservation (defined as # of years of storage x $4,790) was $19,160 per pt (95% CI $9,682-$22,252). The median number of years of storage was 4 (95% CI 4.11-4.65). 77(17.5%) pts have had APBHC in storage for <2 years, 218 (49.5%) have had APBHC in storage for 2-5 years, and 145 (33%) had have APBHC in storage for >5 years. The median time from MM diagnosis to AHCT was 9.0 months (range 13.8-18.5). 82% of patients collected enough APBHC (≥6x10 6, at least 3x10 6 per AHCT)for 2 AHCT. 8% of patients had all APBHC infused during their first AHCT, 83.5% had half of their APBHC infused during their first AHCT, and 8.1% had a different amount of APBHC infused during their first AHCT thus 91.6% of patients who collected APBHC had cells in storage. The median OS for the entire cohort after AHCT was 94.7 months (95% CI 88.6-100). Out of 347 patients who had stem cells in cryopreservation, 5 (1.4%) underwent a salvage AHCT and 3 (0.9%) underwent a tandem AHCT. 61% percent of patients had ≥1 excess collection sessions for APBHC that ultimately went unused. The median cost of excess collection sessions was $4,680 per pt (range, $4,680-$32,760) and the median total cost for excess collection sessions plus costs for storage was $23,840 per pt (range, $4,680-$85,450). The sum of costs of excess collection sessions was $2,077,920 and the sum of costs of cryopreservation was $5,812,665. Conclusion: The results of this single center analysis show that only 1.4% of patients underwent a salvage AHCT between 2010 and 2019 while 91.6% had APBHC left in storage which confirms the increase in storage of cryopreserved APBHC and declining trend in the use of stored APBHC for salvage AHCT in pts with MM. This is likely due to the advent of next generation novel therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents. Excess collections, and cryopreservation of unused APBHC incur a cost of nearly $8 million. Institutional policies regarding universal APBHC collection and long-term storage should be reevaluated. 1Phipps C, et al. Bone Marrow Transplantation 2015:50;663-667. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Sanofi: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are used in various studies to induce immunomodulatory effects in clinical conditions associated with immune dysregulation such as graft versus host disease (GvHD). However, most of these clinical trials failed to go beyond early phase 2 studies because of limited efficacy. Various methods have been assessed to increase the potency of MSCs. IL-10 is an anti-inflammatory cytokine that is known to modulate immune responses in GvHD. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of transfecting IL-10 mRNA to enhance MSC therapeutic potential. IL-10 mRNA engineered MSCs (eMSCs-IL10) maintained high levels of IL-10 expression even after freezing and thawing. IL-10 mRNA transfection did not appear to alter MSC intrinsic characteristics. eMSCs-IL10 significantly suppressed T cell proliferation relative to naïve MSCs in vitro. In a mouse model for GvHD, eMSCs-IL10 induced a decrease in plasma level of potent pro-inflammatory cytokines and inhibited CD4+ and CD8+ T cell proliferation in the spleen. In summary, our studies demonstrate the feasibility of potentiating MSCs to enhance their immunomodulatory effects by IL-10 mRNA transfection. The use of non-viral transfection may generate a safe and potent MSC product for treatment of clinical conditions associated with immune dysregulation such as GvHD.

Background: Archeological archives report cranioplasty as 1 of the oldest surgical procedures; however, it was not until the last century that true advances have been made. Alternative approaches are necessary to achieve optimal closure of the defect with fewer adverse effects. We aim to evaluate the use of human adipose-derived stem cells (hADSCs) alone or seeded in scaffolds as the main treatment for cranial bone defects and to assess human patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was performed by querying PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases with the MeSH terms: “adipose-derived stem cells,” “cranial bone defect,” “stromal vascular factor,” “fat grafting,” as well as synonyms in combinations determined by our search strategy. We included human models that used hADSCs as primary therapy. We excluded studies in languages other than English. Results: One hundred ninety-four studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Four articles that used hADSCs as the main therapy to treat calvarial defects in humans were included. One article applied the cell therapy alone, and 3 used β-tricalcium phosphate granules as a scaffold to seed the hADSCs. Conclusions: Bone regeneration was reached in a short and intermediate period using autologous hADSCs in humans with no major adverse effects in all 4 articles included. A long-term follow-up study (6 years) exhibited late infections and reabsorption of the β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold seeded with hADSCs.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been shown to improve regeneration of injured tissues in vivo. Several in vitro studies and animal models have demonstrated improvement in MSCs paracrine effects under hypoxic conditions. Moreover, several studies suggested that the pro B-type natriuretic peptide (pro-BNP) could be involved in the stimulation of postischemic vascular regeneration. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of critical limb ischemia, in a human model, on in-situ adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) and to determine whether serum levels of N-terminal pro-BNP correlate with ADMSCs counts and associated paracrine effects. Lipoaspirate samples of ≥ 10mL were collected from ischemic limbs (ischemic group) and compared to control (without ischemia). MSCs were characterized by frequency, viability, differentiation potential, cytokines expression, and cell surface markers. Serum NT pro-BNP was measured as well. MSCs counts were 9-to-10-fold higher in patients with ischemic limbs (mean 7952 MSC/mL ± 542) than controls (mean 790 MSC/mL ± 65). Pro-BNP levels (1878-4757 pg/mL) were approximately 8-to-26-fold higher than in age- and sex-matched controls. Furthermore, there were positive correlations between pro-BNP levels and MSCs counts in the ischemic group. In conclusion, patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) have higher levels of pro-BNP and MSCs counts than controls. Increased levels of pro-BNP and MSCs counts can be considered humoral and cellular surrogates of ischemia and hypoxia in patients with CLI. This supports recent studies that suggest that the increase production of peripheral BNP may be a stem cells-mediated response to stimulate angiogenesis in the ischemic skeletal muscles.