Abstract
Retrospective analysis of clinical trial outcomes is a vital exercise to facilitate efficient translation of cellular therapies. These analyses are particularly important for mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) products. The exquisite responsiveness of MSCs, which makes them attractive candidates for immunotherapies, is a double-edged sword; MSC clinical trials result in inconsistent outcomes that may correlate with underlying patient biology or procedural differences at trial sites. Here we review 45 North American MSC clinical trial results published between 2015 and 2021 to assess whether these reports provide sufficient information for retrospective analysis. Trial reports routinely specify the MSC tissue source, autologous or allogeneic origin and administration route. However, most methodological aspects related to cell preparation and handling immediately prior to administration are under-reported. Clinical trial reports inconsistently provide information about cryopreservation media composition, delivery vehicle, post-thaw time and storage until administration, duration of infusion, and pre-administration viability or potency assessments. In addition, there appears to be significant variability in how cell products are formulated, handled or assessed between trials. The apparent gaps in reporting, combined with high process variability, are not sufficient for retrospective analyses that could potentially identify optimal cell preparation and handling protocols that correlate with successful intra- and inter-trial outcomes. The substantial preclinical data demonstrating that cell handling affects MSC potency highlights the need for more comprehensive clinical trial reporting of MSC conditions from expansion through delivery to support development of globally standardized protocols to efficiently advance MSCs as commercial products.
Introduction
Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) products are rapidly advancing as clinical treatments for a range of inflammatory diseases and regenerative medicine applications (Davies et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2019; Levy et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2021). MSC therapies have consistently proven safe (Levy et al., 2020; Krampera and le Blanc, 2021), but clinical outcomes from both autologous and allogeneic MSC trials have been variable and often less beneficial than in preclinical studies (Galipeau and Sensébé, 2018; Martin et al., 2019; Levy et al., 2020; Krampera and le Blanc, 2021). The inconsistent performance of MSC products has been attributed to numerous factors, most of which remain poorly understood or controlled. These have been comprehensively reviewed by others and include MSC heterogeneity between donors, tissues of origin and expansion level (Martin et al., 2019; le Blanc and Davies, 2018; Wiese et al., 2019a; Galipeau et al., 2021), preparation/manufacturing protocols (de Wolf et al., 2017; Mennan et al., 2019; Yin et al., 2019; Levy et al., 2020), administration route (Braid et al., 2018; Giri and Galipeau, 2020; Levy et al., 2020; Moll et al., 2020; Galipeau et al., 2021) and the underlying biological differences between patient recipients (Martin et al., 2019; Levy et al., 2020; Moll et al., 2020; Galipeau et al., 2021).
The realization of MSCs as advanced therapy medicinal products/advanced medicinal products (ATMP/AMP) requires global standardization of MSC manufacturing protocols, critical quality attributes, release criteria, and product preparation and delivery protocols at treatment sites (Mendicino et al., 2014; de Wolf et al., 2017; Viswanathan et al., 2019; Galipeau et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2021; Wright et al., 2021). Retrospective analysis of clinical trial outcomes is a vital exercise to identify the practices that correlate with successful outcomes and those that result in variable outcomes or unsatisfactory efficacy. Statistically powered comparisons of trial procedures and outcomes are limited, however, by the degree to which clinical trial data are recorded and reported.
In this review, we analyze the product and procedural information provided in peer-reviewed clinical trial reports published since 2015. Our analysis focuses on reporting of cell handling procedures from dose preparation–either fresh or thawed–through completion of cell transfer. Surprisingly, we discovered that few clinical trials specify and/or report the handling of MSC products during this window in which the cells are vulnerable to insult and may experience uncontrolled conditions. This lack of information precludes retrospective analysis of the influence of product handling and delivery with clinical outcomes.
Methods
Search Strategy
The search terms mesenchymal stromal cell clinical trial and mesenchymal stem cell clinical trial were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar with filters to include the clinical trial article type, published from 2015 to 2021 inclusive, with an available abstract and full text. These queries returned 471 articles effective 21 January 2022.
Report Selection and Data Extraction
The reports were filtered to include only trials using human-derived live MSC products for human use. Because reporting standards can vary by region, we further limited the scope of our analysis to clinical trials performed in North America. Rationale and Design articles were excluded. These refinements produced 45 peer-reviewed clinical trial reports for analysis.
Data was extracted verbatim from the curated reports according to four categories:
1) Trial and report particulars: Authors, article doi, trial location, publication year, trial phase, product name, affiliate company and clinical trial identifier
2) Study design: Disease or injury indication, administration route, MSC tissue of origin, selected MSC population (if any), MSC state (fresh, cryopreserved or culture-rescued after thaw) and donor relationship (allogeneic or autologous)
3) Dose preparation and handling: MSC dose (per kg and/or mean number), MSC concentration, delivery buffer, rate and duration of cell transfer, dose scheme, storage conditions and duration between dose preparation and administration, and miscellaneous handling details as listed
Where applicable: cryopreservation mode (aliquot or bag), cryomedia formulation, thaw procedures and cell recovery protocols.
4) MSC product characterization: culture media formulation, MSC population doubling level or passage, and quality control attributes including safety (sterility, endotoxin, mycoplasma, viral pathogens, karyotyping, residual FBS, tumorigenesis and others as listed), identity (morphology, surface marker profiles, multilineage potential, HLA profiling, clonogenicity and others as listed), functional attributes (PMBC suppression, cytokine expression, IDO-1 expression, T-cell proliferation, others as listed) and viability including post-thaw viability for cryopreserved products.
Results
Clinical Trial Parameters
The reports predominantly described Phase 1 clinical trials (44%) performed in the United States (90%). The therapeutic indication and clinical trial identifier associated with each publication are listed in Supplementary Table S1. The trials spanned a range of indications, including Graft versus Host Disease (GVHD), autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular injury and disease, sepsis, cancer and others (Supplementary Table S1). The majority of trials used bone marrow-derived (BM) MSCs (71%) delivered intravenously (IV; 40%).
All the clinical trial reports specified the MSC tissue of origin, whether the cell source was autologous or allogeneic, and the administration route (Supplementary Table S1; Tables 1, 2). Most of the trials (93%) reported the dose of MSCs in units of cells/kg patient weight, or mean cells per patient (Table 1). Three trials (7%) did not disclose or even quantify the number of cells per dose (Table 1). Twenty-three trials (51%) included dose-escalation schemes. Twenty-six trials (58%) used fixed doses rather than a dose/kg scheme (Table 1).
TABLE 1
| Author | Administration Route | Cell dose | Cell delivery buffer | Rate and/or duration of administration | Dose and/or delivery detail | Prep-to-admin storage and timing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # per kg | Mean # | ||||||
| Amirdelfan et al. (2021) | Intradiscal | — | 6 or 18 M | Hyaluronic acid (HA) carrier | — | 2 ml (1 ml of 30 or 90 M cells/5 ml + 1 ml 1% HA) | Thawed and combined with HA carrier at time of administration |
| Lanzoni et al. (2021) | IV | — | 100 ± 20 M | Plasma-Lyte, HSA, Heparin | 10 ± 5 min | 2 × 50 ml dose Plasma-Lyte, HSA, Heparin (D0, D3) | Thaw quickly, less than 3 h from thaw to administration |
| Bolli etal. (2018); Bolli et al. (2021) | Endocardial injections | — | 75–150 M | Plasma-Lyte | — | 6 ml | — |
| Soder et al. (2020) | IV | — | — | — | — | — | Thawed immediately on day of administration |
| Kurtzberg et al. (2020) | IV | 2 M | 50 M | Plasma-Lyte A | 1 h | 50 ml dose | Thawed and resuspended immediately before administration |
| Kebriaei et al. (2020) | IV | 2 M | — | Plasma-Lyte, 50 g/L (5%) HSA, 10% DMSO | 4–6 ml/min | — | Thawed and immediately infused |
| Chahal et al. (2019) | Intraarticular | — | 1, 10 or 50 M | 2.5% patient serum in Plasma-Lyte A | — | Dose in 6.5 ml+/- 1.5 ml | 15–25°C for 8 h in Plasma-Lyte A then 2–10°C for 24 h |
| Schlosser et al. (2019) | IV | 0.3, 1 or 3 M (total ≤300 M) | — | 80% Plasma-Lyte A, 20% Alburex-25 human albumin | 20 min (10 ml), 40 min (35 ml) or 60 min (100 ml) by dose cohort | — | — |
| Berry et al. (2019) | IT and IM injection (bicep and tricep) | — | 125 M IT, 48 M IM | Culture media (DMEM) | — | 5 ml IT and 1 ml × 24 IM; DMEM placebo | Validated shipping system at controlled temperature 2–8°C |
| Dozois et al. (2019) | Fistula plug | — | 20 M/plug | Maintained in Lactated Ringer’s solution until delivery | — | — | — |
| Yau et al. (2019) | Intramyocardial | — | 150 M | Cryoprotective medium as sham | 15 min | 16–20 injections of 0.2 ml | Thawed longer than 90 min discarded |
| Levy et al. (2019) | IV | 0.5, 1, or 1.5 M | — | Lactated Ringer’s solution | 2 ml/min | 1 M cells/ml in 1–3 × 60 ml syringes; 0.1 ml intradermal for patient reactivity prior | Stored at 2 to 8°C and infused within 8 h |
| Singer et al. (2019) | IT | — | 10 M, 2 × 50 M or 2 × 100 M | Lactated Ringer’s solution | 1–2 min | Dose followed by 1 ml flush | Used within 12 h of preparation |
| Myerson et al. (2019) | Arthrodesis surgery | N/A (device) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Schweizer et al. (2019) | IV | 1 M or 2 M (max 100 M or 200 M total) | — | 6% hetastarch in 0.9% NaCl injection, 2% HSA, 5% DMSO | — | — | — |
| Powell and Silvestri (2019) | Intratracheal | 10 M (2 ml/kg in 2 aliquots) or 20 M (4 ml/kg in 4 aliquots) | — | Normal saline | 5–10 min | 5 M/ml | Administered within 3 h of thawing and resuspension |
| Chan et al. (2020) | Intramyocardial | — | Targeted 150 M, minimum 15 M | 0.9% NaCl | — | 3 ml in 30 × 100 µl | — |
| Harris et al. (2018) | IT | — | 5.3–10 M (3 doses 3 months apart) | Saline | — | — | — |
| McIntyre et al. (2018) | IV | 0.3, 1 or 3 M to max of 300 M | — | 80% Plasma-Lyte A, 20% Alburex-25 human albumin | 20 min (10 ml), 40 min (35 ml) or 60 min (100 ml) by dose cohort | — | — |
| Matthay et al. (2019) | IV | 10 M | — | Plasma-Lyte A | 60–80 min | 100 ml dose | — |
| Swaminathan et al. (2018) | Intraaortic | 2 M | — | 10% DMSO, 5% HSA in Plasma-Lyte A, pH 7.4a | 1–3 min | 100 ml dose | On refrigerated gel packs and administration within 8 h preparation |
| Keller et al. (2018) | IV | 1, 2 or 4 M | 5 M | Plasma-Lyte, 0.5% DMSO | 2–3 ml/min during the first 15 min, with the option to be adjusted up to 5 ml/min if tolerated | Cells diluted 5-fold in 100 ml | — |
| Tompkins et al. (2017) | IV | — | 100 or 200 M | 0.9% salinea | 2 ml/min | 100 ml; squeeze infusion bag every 15 min, 25 ml flush at end | — |
| Glassberg et al. (2017) | IV | — | 20, 100 or 200 M | PBS, 1% HSAa | — | — | Cryo: thaw in 37°C water bath, wash, resuspended; Fresh: resuspendeda |
| Dietz et al. (2017) | Fistula plug | — | 20 M per plug | Lactated Ringer’s solution | — | — | — |
| Golpanian et al. (2017) | IV | — | 20, 100 or 20 M | 0.9% salinea | 2 ml/min | 100 ml; squeeze infusion bag every 15 min, 25 ml flush at end | — |
| Florea et al. (2017) | Transendocardial | — | 20 or 100 M | PBS +1% HSA or Plasma-Lyte A+ 1% HSAa | — | 20 M/ml; 0.5 cc per injection × 10 | Thaw at 37°C in water bath, pellet resuspendeda |
| Saad et al. (2017) | Intraarterial | 0.1 or 0.25 M | — | Lactated Ringer’s solution | 5 min | 10 ml | — |
| Butler et al. (2017) | IV | 1.5 M | — | Lactated Ringer’s solution | — | 1M/ml, 1 ml/kg | Thawed within pharmacy, infusion within 8 h |
| Bajestan et al. (2017) | Alveolar graft | — | 15–44 M/ml, 2–5 ml/patient | Isolyte +0.5% HSA mixed with b-TCP carrier | — | 10 ml ixmyelocel-t in Isolyte +0.5% HSA mixed with b-TCP carrier; 2.5 ml/patient | At 4°C for up to 40 h |
| Hare et al. (2017) | Transendocardial | — | 100 M (≥80 M autologous) | PBS +1% HSA or Plasma-Lyte A+ 1% HSAa | 0.4 ml/min, 10 × 0.5 ml each | 20 M/ml | Thaw at 37°C in water bath, pellet resuspendeda |
| Harris et al. (2016) | IT | — | — | Saline with CSF | — | Saline with 3 ml CSF then 2 ml CSF flush | — |
| Steinberg et al. (2016) | Post-craniostomy implant | — | 2.5, 5 or 10 M | — | 10 µl per minute, 15 min per track × 3 tracks | — | — |
| Dhere et al. (2016) | IV | 2, 5 or 10 M | — | Plasma-Lyte A with 0.05% HSA | Roughly 60 min | 4 M cells/ml | — |
| Staff et al. (2016) | IT | — | 10, 50, 50 M × 2, 100 M | Lactated Ringer's solution | 1‐2 min | 2 or 10 ml | Administered post-thaw or post-thaw + 4 days |
| Castillo-Cardiel et al. (2017) | To mandibular fracture line pre-open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) | — | 10–600 M from 50cc adipose tissue | — | — | — | — |
| Coetzee et al. (2016) | Arthrodesis surgery | N/A (device) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Patel et al. (2016) | Transendocardial | — | 35–295 Ma | — | — | 5.8–8.4 ml was delivered as a series of 12–17 injections of 0.4 ml eacha | — |
| Levy et al. (2016) | Corpora cavernosum base injection | — | 1 ml product (# not quantified) | Isotonic saline | — | 1.5 ml of 3 ml dilution | — |
| Perin et al. (2015) | Transendocardial | — | 25, 75 or 150 M | Cryoprotective medium as shama | — | 16–20 injections of 0.2 ml | — |
| Levy et al. (2015) | Peyronie plaques, corpora injection | — | — | Isotonic saline | — | Up to 2 ml of 3 ml dilution | — |
| Skyler et al. (2015) | IV | 0.3, 1 or 2 M | — | Normal saline | 45 min | 100 ml | Thawed immediately before use |
| Wilson et al. (2015) | IV | 1, 5 or 10 M | — | Plasma-Lyte A | 60–80 min | 100 ml | 2 h of stability, then 60–80 min gravity feed |
| Maziarz et al. (2015) | IV | 1, 5 or 10 M (repeat 1 or 5M × 3/week or 5M × 5/week | — | Plasma-Lyte A, 5% DMSO | 5–10 ml/min | 23–61 ml or 100–143 ml or 133–294 ml (diluted based on body weight) | Infused within 6 h after thaw |
| Pettine et al. (2015) | Intradiscal | — | ∼726 M (121 ± 11 M/ml × 6) | Non-expanded BM concentrate | — | 6 ml | — |
Clinical trial publications inconsistently report details relevant to MSC dose preparation and bedside handling. Dashed lines represent unreported data.
Denotes publications which have information referenced in external references or supplemental material. Abbreviations: BM, bone marrow; D, day; DMSO, dimethylsulfoxide; FBS, fetal bovine serum; HSA, human serum albumin; IM, intramuscular; IT, intrathecal; IV, intravenous; M, million; MEM, modified eagle’s media; min, minute; N/A, not applicable; NaCl, sodium chloride; NEAA, non-essential amino acids; P, passage; PBS, phosphate buffered saline; PDL, population doubling level.
TABLE 2
| Author | Donor | Manufacturing information | Other preparation details | MSC state | Cryopreservation mode | Cryomedia formulation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture media | MSC culture age | ||||||
| Amirdelfan et al. (2021) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | Frozen | — | — |
| Lanzoni et al. (2021) | Allogeneic | DMEM Low Glucose, 10% platelet gold, 1 × GlutaMAX, 1 × MEM-NEAA | — | — | Frozen | — | — |
| Bolli etal. (2018); Bolli et al. (2021) | Autologous | Lymphocyte cell separation media | — | — | Frozen | — | — |
| Soder et al. (2020) | Allogeneic | — | P5 | — | Frozen | Aliquot | Plasma-Lyte A, DMSO, HSA |
| Kurtzberg et al. (2020) | Allogeneic | — | P5 | — | Frozen | Aliquot | Plasma-Lyte A, DMSO, HSA |
| Kebriaei et al. (2020) | Allogeneic | Supplemented with 10% FBSa | P5 | — | Frozen | Bag | Plasma-Lyte, 50 g/L (5%) HSA, 10% DMSO |
| Chahal et al. (2019) | Autologous | DMEM low glucose, 1% Glutamax, 10% FBS | P3 (day 30) or P4 (day 37) | Washed 2x in Plasma-Lyte A, 1x in Plasma-Lyte A+ 2.5% patient serum (excipient) | Fresh | N/A | — |
| Schlosser et al. (2019) | Allogeneic | NutriStem XF | PDL ≤12 | Culture 5–12 days after thaw (PDL≤18) | Culture-rescued after thaw | — | — |
| Berry et al. (2019) | Autologous | — | — | 3–4 weeks culture for neurotrophic factor secretion | Fresh | N/A | 10% DMSO in growth medium, controlled rate, pre-MSC-NTF generationa |
| Dozois et al. (2019) | Autologous | — | — | Thawed to adhere to fistula plug (proprietary) | Frozen | — | — |
| Yau et al. (2019) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | Frozen | Aliquot4 × 1 ml | 7.5% DMSO, 50% α-MEM, 42.5% ProFreezea |
| Levy et al. (2019) | Allogeneic | — | P4 | 5% O2; washed in Lactate Ringer’s solution | Frozen | Aliquot | Cryostor CS10 |
| Singer et al. (2019) | Autologous | — | — | Thaw from cryo, culture in PLTMax for 3–5 days | Culture-rescued after thaw | — | — |
| Myerson et al. (2019) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Schweizer et al. (2019) | Allogeneic | α-MEM, 2 mM l‐glutamine, 10% FBS, no antibiotics | — | — | Frozen | Bag20 ml | 6% hetastarch in 0.9% NaCl injection, 2% HSA, 5% DMSO |
| Powell and Silvestri (2019) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | Frozen | — | — |
| Chan et al. (2020) | Autologous | α-MEM, 20% FBS, gentamicin | To P3 in 21 days | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Harris et al. (2018) | Autologous | Lonza NPMM | 2–3 weeks after thaw at P2-3 | Culture-rescued after thaw | — | — | |
| McIntyre et al. (2018) | Allogeneic | NutriStem XF | PDL ≤12 | Culture 5–12 days after thaw (PDL≤18) | Culture-rescued after thaw | — | — |
| Matthay et al. (2019) | Allogeneic | — | — | Wash to remove DMSO before resuspension | Frozen | Aliquot | Contains DMSO |
| Swaminathan et al. (2018) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | Frozen | Bag20 ml | 20 ml (120 M cells) PlasmaLyte A w/10% DMSO, 5% HSA, pH 7.4a |
| Keller et al. (2018) | Allogeneic | α-MEM, 9.8% HyClone Characterized FBS | — | — | Frozen | — | 20 ml, 2.5% DMSO |
| Tompkins et al. (2017) | Allogeneic | α-MEM, 20% FBS | P1 (21–24 days)a | Wash with Plasma-Lyte A+ 1% HSAa | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Glassberg et al. (2017) | Allogeneic | α-MEM, 20% FBS | P1 (21–24 days)a | Washeda | Fresh and frozen | — | Pentaspan (10% pentastarch in 0.9% NaCl), 2% HSA, 5% DMSOa |
| Dietz et al. (2017) | Autologous | — | — | Thaw from cryo, bioreactor 3–6 days for plug adherence | Culture-rescued after thaw | — | — |
| Golpanian et al. (2017) | Allogeneic | α-MEM, 20% FBS | P1 (21–24 days)a | Wash with Plasma-Lyte A+ 1% HSAa | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Florea et al. (2017) | Allogeneic | α-MEM, 20% FBS | P1 (21–24 days)a | — | Frozen | — | Pentaspan (10% pentastarch in 0.9% NaCl), 2% HSA, 5% DMSOa |
| Saad et al. (2017) | Autologous | Isolated 6 weeks prior, 2 weeks in Advanced MEM with PLTMax (5% platelet lysate, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 g/ml streptomycin, 2 mM l-glutamine) | — | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Butler et al. (2017) | Allogeneic | — | — | Hypoxia | Frozen | — | Cryostor CS10 |
| Bajestan et al. (2017) | Autologous | IMDM, 10% FBS, 10% horse serum, 5 mM hydrocortisone | 12 days in bioreactor | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Hare et al. (2017) | Autologous and Allogeneic | α-MEM, 20% FBS | P1 (21–24 days)a | — | Frozen | — | Pentaspan (10% pentastarch in 0.9% NaCl), 2% HSA, 5% DMSOa |
| Harris et al. (2016) | Autologous | 2–3 passages/7–54 days in Lonza MSCGM +10% patient serum, plus 7–24 days in Lonza NPMM | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A | |
| Steinberg et al. (2016) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dhere et al. (2016) | Autologous | α-MEM, 10% HSA | P1 | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Staff et al. (2016) | Autologous | Advanced MEM, 5% hPL | <P5 | — | Frozen | Aliquot | — |
| Castillo-Cardiel et al. (2017) | Autologous | DMEM, 10% FBS, antibiotics | 24 h | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Coetzee et al. (2016) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Patel et al. (2016) | Autologous | — | 12 days in bioreactor | N/A | Fresh | N/A | N/A |
| Levy et al. (2016) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Perin et al. (2015) | Allogeneic | — | P5 or <20 PDL | — | Frozen | Aliquot4 × 1 ml | 4% DMSO, 50% α-MEM, 42.5% ProFreeze |
| Levy et al. (2015) | Allogeneic | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Skyler et al. (2015) | Allogeneic | Media (unspecified), FBS | — | — | Frozen | — | 4% DMSO, 50% α-MEM, 42.5% ProFreeze |
| Wilson et al. (2015) | Allogeneic | — | — | Frozen | — | Contains DMSO | |
| Maziarz et al. (2015) | Allogeneic | FBS | — | Wash in HSA before cryo | Frozen | — | Contains DMSO |
| Pettine et al. (2015) | Autologous | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Clinical trial publications underreport MSC manufacturing details. Dashed lines represent unreported data.
Denotes publications which have information referenced in external references or supplemental material. Abbreviations: cryo, cryopreservation; DMSO, dimethylsulfoxide; FBS, fetal bovine serum; HSA, human serum albumin; IM, intramuscular; IV, intravenous; M, million; MEM, modified eagle medium (D, Dulbecco’s); MSC, mesenchymal stromal cell; N/A, not applicable; NaCl, sodium chloride; NEAA, non-essential amino acids; NTF, neurotrophic factor-secreting; P, passage; PDL, population doubling level.
Reported MSC Product Characterization
Some form of cell product characterization was usually reported (89%), although the assessment criteria used was mixed (Supplementary Table S2). Viability was the most commonly reported metric, but the acceptable threshold ranged from 50 to 98% between trials (Supplementary Table S2). Studies using frozen cells stipulate whether viability assessments were made before cryopreservation, on a sample thawed lot, or per vial/bag at the time of use. Safety criteria, including tests for bacterial, fungal and viral contamination, chromosomal stability and residual FBS, were reported in 32 studies (71%; Supplementary Table S2). Thirty-three reports (73%) listed cell identity tests, including surface marker profiling, multi-lineage differentiation, and clonogenicity (Supplementary Table S2). Functional assessments were only reported for 12 clinical trials (27%) and included peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) and T-cell suppression, IDO-1 expression after IFN-γ stimulation, or secretion of other relevant proteins (Supplementary Table S2).
Details related to product formulation and handling were poorly documented. Twenty-five publications (55%) failed to fully define the medium in which the MSCs were expanded or administered, and 23 reports (51%) provided no information about the population doubling level (culture age) of the cells (Table 2). Of the 21 reports (47%) that provided some description of MSC expansion level, 10 (22%) only provided number of days in culture. Three (7%) reports provided discrete population doubling levels; the remaining studies reported passage number.
Reported MSC Product Handling
Most trials (62%) used previously frozen MSCs, while six publications (13%) did not stipulate whether their MSC products were derived from fresh cultures or had been thawed (Table 2). Of the 28 publications that used previously frozen MSC products, nearly half did not list the cryopreservation media (Table 2). Cryo-rescue procedures were essentially unreported, even though all but four trials administered MSCs directly following thaw without a recovery period or transfer of cells from cryopreservation media to delivery buffer/vehicle. Only seven papers stated that a wash step was performed, but no further details of the wash procedures were provided (Table 1).
Injection/infusion buffers were fairly well reported (91%) and predominately consisted of Plasma-Lyte, Plasma-Lyte A, Lactated Ringer’s solution, and saline with or without human serum albumin (HSA) or dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) at varying concentrations (Table 1). Buffer solution was not used in an AD MSC bone allograft device in arthrodesis surgery (Coetzee et al., 2016; Myerson et al., 2019). One publication reported intradiscal injection of non-expanded BM concentrate (Pettine et al., 2015).
Duration of cell transfer was reported for the majority (78%) of trials that used IV infusion, either in minutes or ml/min (Table 1). Infusion time ranged from 5 min to 1 h. Of the trials using other administration routes, 28% reported the duration or rate of administration (Table 1). Most reports (84%) provided no information about the elapsed time from when the dose was prepared until cell transfer was complete (Table 1). Seven (16%) reports specified a maximum elapsed time from dose prep or thaw to administration, which ranged from 90 min to 12 h (Table 1). The three studies that included product handling protocols each used different methods; prepared doses were held in refrigeration, on cold packs or at room temperature (Table 1).
Discussion
MSCs are fundamentally responsive to subtle changes in their environment. MSCs respond to changes in atmospheric gases (Lin et al., 2014; Gorgun et al., 2021; Roemeling-Van Rhijn et al., 2013; Ejtehadifar et al., 2015; Kang et al., 2019; von Bahr et al., 2019), temperature (Stolzing et al., 2006; Kubrova et al., 2020; Shimoni et al., 2020), hydrostatic pressure (Steward et al., 2012; Becquart et al., 2016; Pattappa et al., 2019) and aggregation (Robb et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019; Burand et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2021). It is surprising then, that the steps and duration between dose preparation and delivery of MSC therapies are ill-defined and under-reported. We predict that bedside handling of MSC products may contribute substantially to the variability and reduced efficacy documented in clinical trials. Retrospective analysis to test this hypothesis, however, is currently impossible due to the absence of relevant information (Sart et al., 2014).
As example, MSCs have a natural tendency to self-assemble and form aggregates [reviewed in (Myerson et al., 2019)]. It has been reported that spontaneous aggregation can alter the immunosuppressive properties of MSCs, rendering them incapable of T cell suppression (Lanzoni et al, 2021). Thus, steps must be taken to control MSC aggregation between dose preparation and the completion of cell transfer. Even though cell doses were held for up to 12 h in the reviewed clinical trials, almost no measures to manage cell aggregation were described. Two studies reported squeezing the bag every 15 min during infusion, but no other reports described strategies to mitigate spontaneous aggregation. If the reports had documented the steps taken (if any) to prevent MSC aggregation during administration, retrospective analysis could potentially reveal whether implementing these strategies improves clinical outcomes.
Retrospective analysis could similarly be used to determine whether wash number, wash duration, centrifugation speed and buffer composition correlates with clinical outcomes. Thawed cells are fragile so thaw temperatures, duration and subsequent wash steps likely impact MSC fitness. The steps used to reconstitute frozen MSCs thawed immediately prior to administration were never reported. Moreover, few trials that thawed frozen MSCs immediately prior to administration stated the density at which the cells were cryopreserved, composition of the cryopreservation media, how the cells were thawed, whether or not they were washed, frequency of washing and the wash buffer used.
Currently, any changes in MSC fitness and performance in the hours between dose preparation and completion of infusion or injection is a black box devoid of data. To our knowledge, few studies have formally tested potential loss of function through sampling of MSC products during this window, or by recapitulating these conditions in laboratory tests (Pal et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2013; Niu et al., 2013). Intermittent bedside product testing admittedly is a logistical challenge. Thus, we suggest that clinical trial design include laboratory development of defined bedside procedures to ensure that the patient receives the same quality of MSC product that was prepared earlier and was subject to quality testing. Establishing and reporting these cell handling procedures, as well as any deviations from these protocols, may provide invaluable insight for retrospective analysis and ultimately ensure that patients consistently receive high quality MSC treatments.
There is a global movement towards standardization of MSC products. Such standardization includes development of tests to establish minimum cell performance criteria (Chinnadurai et al., 2018; Galipeau and Sensébé, 2018; Wiese et al., 2019b; Martin et al., 2019; Wiese and Braid, 2020a; Wiese and Braid, 2020b; Moll et al., 2020; Galipeau et al., 2021; Krampera and le Blanc, 2021), which are a critical to obtain regulatory approval for commercialization (Mendicino et al., 2014; Galipeau et al., 2015; de Wolf et al., 2017; Galipeau and Sensébé, 2018). Consistent with this movement, we found that most clinical trials reported some type of cell characterization. Viability and cell identity, based on accepted MSC cell surface profiles, were the most commonly reported tests. Consistent with a recent review of MSC characterization in clinical trials (Wilson et al., 2021), cell performance in functional assays or surrogate potency assays was documented infrequently, and performance thresholds were not disclosed. Post-thaw viability was also reported far less frequently than expected, especially since most of the trials used cryo-rescued cells.
We propose that ongoing global efforts to define the critical quality attributes of MSC ATMPs and subsequent release criteria be mindful of the need to identify markers and tests that can rapidly report MSC fitness and potency. These rapid-response markers will enable future development of in-process and bedside testing of MSC products, an important advancement in the realization of MSCs as commercially viable cell therapies.
Finally, retrospective analysis would be better enabled by establishing formal guidelines for clinical trial reporting. A recent clinical trial design by Baker et al. (2021) provides an excellent model to establish reproducible and transparent bedside cell handling procedures. We propose that clinical trial reports include all available cell characterization data and carefully document bedside handling of MSC products. Making this information readily available in the main report rather than citing other publications would facilitate accessibility for statistical analysis of large data sets and improve confidence that the data correlates with actual events and cell doses used in the trial.
Conclusion
We urge the MSC community to incorporate and report bedside MSC handling protocols and best practices in clinical trial design and reporting. The notable lack of information and data surrounding how these exquisitely responsive cells are treated when the cells are most vulnerable is not likely an issue of propriety. Rather, this aspect of the cell therapy journey from vial to vein appears to have been designated as arbitrary, a classification that we argue is flawed. Documenting and reporting bedside cell processing and handling procedures will aid effective retrospective analysis of clinical trial outcomes and expedite the commercialization of MSC products.
Statements
Author contributions
LB conceived the manuscript. DW and CW contributed to literature search and analysis. DW and LB prepared the manuscript with assistance from CW. LB generated financial support for the research. All authors approved the final manuscript submitted for consideration.
Funding
This work was funded in part by the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program Project 914919.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Brendon DeGroot for assistance with updating the literature search.
Conflict of interest
LB, DW, and CW were employed by the company Aurora BioSolutions Inc.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest with the subject matter.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2022.867426/full#supplementary-material
Abbreviations
CFU, colony forming units; cryo, cryopreservation; ELISA, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay; FBS, fetal bovine serum; h, hour; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; IDO, indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase; IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; NTF, neurotrophic factor; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cells; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; QC, quality control; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
References
1
AmirdelfanK.BaeH.McJunkinT.DePalmaM.KimK.BeckworthW. J.et al (2021). Allogeneic Mesenchymal Precursor Cells Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain Associated with Degenerative Disc Disease: a Prospective Randomized, Placebo-Controlled 36-month Study of Safety and Efficacy. Spine J.21 (2). 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.10.004
2
BajestanM. N.RajanA.EdwardsS. P.AronovichS.CevidanesL. H. S.PolymeriA.et al (2017). Stem Cell Therapy for Reconstruction of Alveolar Cleft and Trauma Defects in Adults: A Randomized Controlled, Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant Dent Relat. Res.19 (5), 793–801. 10.1111/cid.12506
3
BakerE. K.WallaceE. M.DavisP. G.MalhotraA.JacobsS. E.HooperS. B.et al (2021). A Protocol for Cell Therapy Infusion in Neonates. Stem Cell Transl Med10 (5), 773–780. 10.1002/sctm.20-0281
4
BecquartP.CruelM.HocT.SudreL.PernelleK.BiziosR.et al (2016). Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Responses to Hydrostatic Pressure and Shear Stress. Eur. Cel Mater31, 160–73. 10.22203/ecm.v031a11
5
BerryJ. D.CudkowiczM. E.WindebankA. J.StaffN. P.OwegiM.NicholsonK.et al (2019). NurOwn, Phase 2, Randomized, Clinical Trial in Patients with ALS: Safety, Clinical, and Biomarker Results. Neurology93 (24), e2294. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008620
6
BolliR.HareJ. M.MarchK. L.PepineC. J.WillersonJ. T.PerinE. C.et al (2018). Rationale and Design of the CONCERT-HF Trial (Combination of Mesenchymal and C-Kit + Cardiac Stem Cells as Regenerative Therapy for Heart Failure). Circ. Res.122 (12), 1703–1715. 10.1161/circresaha.118.312978
7
BolliR.MitraniR. D.HareJ. M.PepineC. J.PerinE. C.WillersonJ. T.et al (2021). A Phase II Study of Autologous Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and C‐kit Positive Cardiac Cells, Alone or in Combination, in Patients with Ischaemic Heart Failure: the CCTRN CONCERT‐HF Trial. Eur. J. Heart Fail.23 (4), 661–674. 10.1002/ejhf.2178
8
BraidL. R.WoodC. A.WieseD. M.FordB. N. (2018). Intramuscular Administration Potentiates Extended Dwell Time of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Compared to Other Routes. Cytotherapy20, 232–244. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2017.09.013
9
BurandA. J.DiL.BolandL. K.BoytD. T.SchrodtM. V.SantillanD. A.et al (2020). Aggregation of Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Eliminates Their Ability to Suppress Human T Cells. Front. Immunol.11, 143. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00143
10
ButlerJ.EpsteinS. E.GreeneS. J.QuyyumiA. A.SikoraS.KimR. J.et al (2017). Intravenous Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: Safety and Efficacy Results of a Phase II-A Randomized Trial. Circ. Res.120 (2), 332–340. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309717
11
Castillo-CardielG.López-EchauryA. C.Saucedo-OrtizJ. A.Fuentes-OrozcoC.Michel-EspinozaL. R.Irusteta-JiménezL.et al (2017). Bone Regeneration in Mandibular Fractures after the Application of Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells, a Randomized Clinical Trial. Dent Traumatol.33 (1), 38–44. 10.1111/edt.12303
12
ChahalJ.Gómez-AristizábalA.ShestopaloffK.BhattS.ChaboureauA.FazioA.et al (2019). Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Treatment in Patients with Osteoarthritis Results in Overall Improvement in Pain and Symptoms and Reduces Synovial Inflammation. Stem Cell Transl Med8 (8), 746–757. 10.1002/sctm.18-0183
13
ChanJ. L.MillerJ. G.ZhouY.RobeyP. G.StroncekD. F.AraiA. E.et al (2020). “Intramyocardial Bone Marrow Stem Cells in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgical Revascularization,” in Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.07.093
14
ChenY.YuB.XueG.ZhaoJ.LiR. K.LiuZ.et al (2013). Effects of Storage Solutions on the Viability of Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Transplantation. Cel Transpl.22 (6), 1075–86. 10.3727/096368912X657602
15
ChinnaduraiR.RajanD.QayedM.ArafatD.GarciaM.LiuY.et al (2018). Potency Analysis of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Using a Combinatorial Assay Matrix Approach. Cel Rep.
16
CoetzeeJ. C.MyersonM. S.AndersonJ. G. (2016). The Use of Allostem in Subtalar Fusions. Foot Ankle Clin.21. 10.1016/j.fcl.2016.07.011
17
DaviesJ. E.WalkerJ. T.KeatingA. (2017). Concise Review: Wharton's Jelly: The Rich, but Enigmatic, Source of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Stem Cell Translational Med.6 (7), 1620–1630. 10.1002/sctm.16-0492
18
de WolfC.van de BovenkampM.HoefnagelM. (2017). Regulatory Perspective on In Vitro Potency Assays for Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Used in Immunotherapy. Cytotherapy. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2017.03.076
19
DhereT.CoplandI.GarciaM.ChiangK. Y.ChinnaduraiR.PrasadM.et al (2016). The Safety of Autologous and Metabolically Fit Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Medically Refractory Crohn's Disease - a Phase 1 Trial with Three Doses. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.44 (5), 471–81. 10.1111/apt.13717
20
DietzA. B.DozoisE. J.FletcherJ. G.ButlerG. W.RadelD.LightnerA. L.et al (2017). Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Applied in a Bioabsorbable Matrix, for Treatment of Perianal Fistulas in Patients with Crohn's Disease. Gastroenterology153 (1), 59–e2. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.04.001
21
DozoisE. J.LightnerA. L.MathisK. L.ChuaH. K.KelleyS. R.FletcherJ. G.et al (2019). Early Results of a Phase I Trial Using an Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Coated Fistula Plug for the Treatment of Transsphincteric Cryptoglandular Fistulas. Dis. Colon Rectum62 (5), 615–622. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001333
22
EjtehadifarM.ShamsasenjanK.MovassaghpourA.AkbarzadehlalehP.DehdilaniN.AbbasiP.et al (2015). The Effect of Hypoxia on Mesenchymal Stem Cell Biology. Adv. Pharm. Bull.5. 10.15171/apb.2015.021
23
FloreaV.RiegerA. C.DiFedeD. L.El-KhorazatyJ.NatsumedaM.BanerjeeM. N.et al (2017). Dose Comparison Study of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (The TRIDENT Study). Circ. Res.121 (11), 1279–1290. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.311827
24
GalipeauJ.KramperaM.BarrettJ.DazziF.DeansR. J.DeBruijnJ.et al (2015). International Society for Cellular Therapy Perspective on Immune Functional Assays for Mesenchymal Stromal Cells as Potency Release Criterion for Advanced Phase Clinical Trials. Cytotherapy.
25
GalipeauJ.KramperaM.LeblancK.NoltaJ. A.PhinneyD. G.ShiY.et al (2021). Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Variables Influencing Clinical Potency: the Impact of Viability, Fitness, Route of Administration and Host Predisposition. Cytotherapy23 (5). 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.11.007
26
GalipeauJ.SensébéL. (2018). Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Clinical Challenges and Therapeutic Opportunities. Cell Stem Cell22 (6), 824–833. 10.1016/j.stem.2018.05.004
27
GiriJ.GalipeauJ. (2020). Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapeutic Potency Is Dependent upon Viability, Route of Delivery, and Immune Match. Blood Adv.4 (9), 1987–1997. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001711
28
GlassbergM. K.MinkiewiczJ.ToonkelR. L.SimonetE. S.RubioG. A.DiFedeD.et al (2017). Allogeneic Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis via Intravenous Delivery (AETHER): A Phase I Safety Clinical Trial. Chest151. 10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.061
29
GolpanianS.DifedeD. L.KhanA.SchulmanI. H.LandinA. M.TompkinsB. A.et al (2017). Allogeneic Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Infusions for Aging Frailty. J. Gerontol. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.72 (11), 1505–1512. 10.1093/gerona/glx056
30
GorgunC.CeresaD.LesageR.VillaF.ReverberiD.BalbiC.et al (2021). Dissecting the Effects of Preconditioning with Inflammatory Cytokines and Hypoxia on the Angiogenic Potential of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell (MSC)-derived Soluble Proteins and Extracellular Vesicles (EVs). Biomaterials, 269.
31
HareJ. M.DiFedeD. L.RiegerA. C.FloreaV.LandinA. M.El-KhorazatyJ.et al (2017). Randomized Comparison of Allogeneic versus Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: POSEIDON-DCM Trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.69 (5), 526–537. 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.009
32
HarrisV. K.StarkJ.VyshkinaT.BlackshearL.JooG.StefanovaV.et al (2018). Phase I Trial of Intrathecal Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Neural Progenitors in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. EBioMedicine29, 23–30. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.02.002
33
HarrisV. K.VyshkinaT.SadiqS. A. (2016). Clinical Safety of Intrathecal Administration of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Derived Neural Progenitors in Multiple Sclerosis. Cytotherapy18 (12), 1476–1482. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2016.08.007
34
KangT. Y.KwonJ. S.KumarN.ChoiE. H.KimK. M. (2019). Effects of a Non-thermal Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Jet with Different Gas Sources and Modes of Treatment on the Fate of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Appl. Sci. (Switzerland)9 (22). 10.3390/app9224819
35
KebriaeiP.HayesJ.DalyA.UbertiJ.MarksD. I.SoifferR.et al (2020). A Phase 3 Randomized Study of Remestemcel-L versus Placebo Added to Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Steroid-Refractory Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl.26 (5), 835–844. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.08.029
36
KellerC. A.GonwaT. A.HodgeD. O.HeiD. J.CentanniJ. M.ZubairA. C. (2018). Feasibility, Safety, and Tolerance of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Obstructive Chronic Lung Allograft Dysfunction. Stem Cell Transl Med7 (2), 161–167. 10.1002/sctm.17-0198
37
KramperaM.le BlancK. (2021). Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Putative Microenvironmental Modulators Become Cell Therapy. Cell Stem Cell28. 10.1016/j.stem.2021.09.006
38
KubrovaE.QuW.GalvanM. L.ParadiseC. R.YangJ.DietzA. B.et al (2020). Hypothermia and Nutrient Deprivation Alter Viability of Human Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Gene722, 144058. 10.1016/j.gene.2019.144058
39
KurtzbergJ.Abdel-AzimH.CarpenterP.ChaudhuryS.HornB.MahadeoK.et al (2020). A Phase 3, Single-Arm, Prospective Study of Remestemcel-L, Ex Vivo Culture-Expanded Adult Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for the Treatment of Pediatric Patients Who Failed to Respond to Steroid Treatment for Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl.26 (5), 845–854. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.01.018
40
LanzoniG.LinetskyE.CorreaD.Messinger CayetanoS.AlvarezR. A.KouroupisD.et al (2021). Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Double-Blind, Phase 1/2a, Randomized Controlled Trial. Stem Cell Translational Med.10 (5), 660–673. 10.1002/sctm.20-0472
41
le BlancK.DaviesL. C. (2018). MSCs—cells with many Sides. Cytotherapy.
42
LevyJ. A.MarchandM.IorioL.CassiniW.ZahalskyM. P. (2016). Determining the Feasibility of Managing Erectile Dysfunction in Humans with Placental-Derived Stem Cells. J. Am. Osteopath Assoc.116 (1), e1–5. 10.7556/jaoa.2016.007
43
LevyJ. A.MarchandM.IorioL.ZribiG.ZahalskyM. P. (2015). Effects of Stem Cell Treatment in Human Patients with Peyronie Disease. J. Am. Osteopath Assoc.115 (10), e8–13. 10.7556/jaoa.2015.124
44
LevyM. L.CrawfordJ. R.DibN.VerkhL.TankovichN.CramerS. C. (2019). Phase I/II Study of Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Intravenous Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Chronic Stroke. Stroke50 (10), 2835–2841. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026318
45
LevyO.KuaiR.SirenE. M. J.BhereD.MiltonY.NissarN.et al (2020). Shattering Barriers toward Clinically Meaningful MSC Therapies. Sci. Adv.6 (30), eaba6884. 10.1126/sciadv.aba6884
46
LinS. S.UengS. W.NiuC. C.YuanL. J.YangC. Y.ChenW. J.et al (2014). Effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen on the Osteogenic Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord.15 (1), 56. 10.1186/1471-2474-15-56
47
MartinI.GalipeauJ.KesslerC.Le BlancK.DazziF. (2019). Challenges for Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapies. Sci. Transl Med.11 (480). 10.1126/scitranslmed.aat2189
48
MatthayM. A.CalfeeC. S.ZhuoH.ThompsonB. T.WilsonJ. G.LevittJ. E.et al (2019). Treatment with Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (START Study): a Randomised Phase 2a Safety Trial. Lancet Respir. Med.7 (2), 154–162. 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30418-1
49
MaziarzR. T.DevosT.BachierC. R.GoldsteinS. C.LeisJ. F.DevineS. M.et al (2015). Single and Multiple Dose Multistem (Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cell) Therapy Prophylaxis of Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease in Myeloablative Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Phase 1 Trial. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl.21 (4), 720–8. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.12.025
50
McIntyreL. A.StewartD. J.MeiS. H. J.CourtmanD.WatpoolI.GrantonJ.et al (2018). Cellular Immunotherapy for Septic Shock. A Phase I Clinical Trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.197 (3), 337–347. 10.1164/rccm.201705-1006OC
51
MendicinoM.BaileyA. M.WonnacottK.PuriR. K.BauerS. R. (2014). MSC-based Product Characterization for Clinical Trials: An FDA Perspective. Cell Stem Cell14. 10.1016/j.stem.2014.01.013
52
MennanC.GarciaJ.RobertsS.HulmeC.WrightK. (2019). A Comprehensive Characterisation of Large-Scale Expanded Human Bone Marrow and Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Stem Cel Res Ther10 (1), 99–15. 10.1186/s13287-019-1202-4
53
MollG.DrzeniekN.Kamhieh-MilzJ.GeisslerS.VolkH. D.ReinkeP. (2020). MSC Therapies for COVID-19: Importance of Patient Coagulopathy, Thromboprophylaxis, Cell Product Quality and Mode of Delivery for Treatment Safety and Efficacy. Front. Immunol.11, 1091. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01091
54
MyersonC. L.MyersonM. S.CoetzeeJ. C.Stone McGaverR.GiveansM. R. (2019). Subtalar Arthrodesis with Use of Adipose-Derived Cellular Bone Matrix Compared with Autologous Bone Graft: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Bone Jt. Surg Am101 (21), 1904–1911. 10.2106/JBJS.18.01300
55
NiuY. H.ChenY.ZhangJ. L.LeiX.DongY. T.CuiL.et al (2013). Oxidative Stress Effect on Viability of Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Storage Solution of Transplantation. Chin. J. Tissue Eng. Res.17 (32).
56
PalR.HanwateM.ToteyS. M. (2008). Effect of Holding Time, Temperature and Different Parenteral Solutions on Viability and Functionality of Adult Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells before Transplantation. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med.2 (7), 436–44. 10.1002/term.109
57
PatelA. N.HenryT. D.QuyyumiA. A.SchaerG. L.AndersonR. D.TomaC.et al (2016). Ixmyelocel-T for Patients with Ischaemic Heart Failure: a Prospective Randomised Double-Blind Trial. Lancet387 (10036), 2412–21. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30137-4
58
PattappaG.ZellnerJ.JohnstoneB.DochevaD.AngeleP. (2019). Cells under Pressure - the Relationship between Hydrostatic Pressure and Mesenchymal Stem Cell Chondrogenesis. Eur. Cell Mater.37.
59
PerinE. C.BorowK. M.SilvaG. V.DeMariaA. N.MarroquinO. C.HuangP. P.et al (2015). A Phase II Dose-Escalation Study of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Precursor Cells in Patients with Ischemic or Nonischemic Heart Failure. Circ. Res.117 (6), 576–84. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306332
60
PettineK. A.MurphyM. B.SuzukiR. K.SandT. T. (2015). Percutaneous Injection of Autologous Bone Marrow Concentrate Cells Significantly Reduces Lumbar Discogenic Pain through 12 Months. Stem Cells33 (1), 146–56. 10.1002/stem.1845
61
PowellS. B.SilvestriJ. M. (2019). Safety of Intratracheal Administration of Human Umbilical Cord Blood Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Extremely Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants. J. Pediatr.210, 209–e2. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.02.029
62
RobbK.Gómez-AristizábalA.GandhiR.ViswanathanS. (2019). A Culture Engineering Strategy to Enhance Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Treatment of Osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage27. 10.1016/j.joca.2019.02.447
63
Roemeling-Van RhijnM.MensahF. K.KorevaarS. S.LeijsM. J.van OschG. J.IJzermansJ. N.et al (2013). Effects of Hypoxia on the Immunomodulatory Properties of Adipose Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Front. Immunol.4 (JUL), 203. 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00203
64
SaadA.DietzA. B.HerrmannS. M. S.HicksonL. J.GlocknerJ. F.McKusickM. A.et al (2017). Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Increase Cortical Perfusion in Renovascular Disease. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.28 (9), 2777–2785. 10.1681/ASN.2017020151
65
SartS.TsaiA. C.LiY.MaT. (2014). Three-dimensional Aggregates of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Cellular Mechanisms, Biological Properties, and Applications. Tissue Eng. - B: Rev.20. 10.1089/ten.teb.2013.0537
66
SchlosserK.WangJ. P.dos SantosC.WalleyK. R.MarshallJ.FergussonD. A.et al (2019). Effects of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment on Systemic Cytokine Levels in a Phase 1 Dose Escalation Safety Trial of Septic Shock Patients. Crit. Care Med.47 (7), 918–925. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003657
67
SchweizerM. T.WangH.BivalacquaT. J.PartinA. W.LimS. J.ChapmanC.et al (2019). A Phase I Study to Assess the Safety and Cancer-Homing Ability of Allogeneic Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Stem Cell Transl Med8 (5), 441–449. 10.1002/sctm.18-0230
68
ShimoniC.GoldsteinM.Ribarski-ChorevI.SchautenI.NirD.StraussC.et al (2020). Heat Shock Alters Mesenchymal Stem Cell Identity and Induces Premature Senescence. Front Cel Dev Biol8, 565970. 10.3389/fcell.2020.565970
69
SingerW.DietzA. B.ZellerA. D.GehrkingT. L.SchmelzerJ. D.SchmeichelA. M.et al (2019). Intrathecal Administration of Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Multiple System Atrophy. Neurology93 (1), e77. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007720
70
SkylerJ. S.FonsecaV. A.SegalK. R.RosenstockJ. (2015). Allogeneic Mesenchymal Precursor Cells in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Escalation Safety and Tolerability Pilot Study. Diabetes Care38 (9), 1742–9. 10.2337/dc14-2830
71
SoderR. P.DawnB.WeissM. L.DunavinN.WeirS.MitchellJ.et al (2020). A Phase I Study to Evaluate Two Doses of Wharton's Jelly-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for the Treatment of De Novo High-Risk or Steroid-Refractory Acute Graft versus Host Disease. Stem Cel Rev Rep16 (5), 979–991. 10.1007/s12015-020-10015-8
72
StaffN. P.MadiganN. N.MorrisJ.JentoftM.SorensonE. J.ButlerG.et al (2016). Safety of Intrathecal Autologous Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Patients with ALS. Neurology87 (21), 2230–2234. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003359
73
SteinbergG. K.KondziolkaD.BatesD.LunsfordL. D.CoburnM. L.BilligenJ. B.et al (2016). Response by Steinberg et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Clinical Outcomes of Transplanted Modified Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Stroke: A Phase 1/2A Study". Stroke47 (7), e269. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.015209
74
StewardA. J.ThorpeS. D.VinardellT.BuckleyC. T.WagnerD. R.KellyD. J. (2012). Cell-matrix Interactions Regulate Mesenchymal Stem Cell Response to Hydrostatic Pressure. Acta Biomater.8 (6), 2153–9. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.03.016
75
StolzingA.SetheS.ScuttA. M. (2006). Stressed Stem Cells: Temperature Response in Aged Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Stem Cell Dev15 (4), 478–87. 10.1089/scd.2006.15.478
76
SwaminathanM.Stafford-SmithM.ChertowG. M.WarnockD. G.ParagamianV.BrennerR. M.et al (2018). Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Treatment of AKI after Cardiac Surgery. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.29 (1), 260–267. 10.1681/ASN.2016101150
77
TompkinsB. A.DifedeD. L.KhanA.LandinA. M.SchulmanI. H.PujolM. V.et al (2017). Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Ameliorate Aging Frailty: A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Gerontol. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.72 (11), 1513–1522. 10.1093/gerona/glx137
78
ViswanathanS.ShiY.GalipeauJ.KramperaM.LeblancK.MartinI.et al (2019). Mesenchymal Stem versus Stromal Cells: International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT®) Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Committee Position Statement on Nomenclature. Cytotherapy.
79
von BahrV.MillarJ. E.MalfertheinerM. V.KiK. K.PassmoreM. R.BartnikowskiN.et al (2019). Mesenchymal Stem Cells May Ameliorate Inflammation in an Ex Vivo Model of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Perfusion34 (1_Suppl. l), 15–21. 10.1177/0267659119830857
80
WieseD.BraidL. R. (2020). Towards a Consensus Potency Assay for Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Identification of Activation Markers Reliable across media Formulations, Donor and Tissue Source. Cytotherapy22 (5). 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.03.109
81
WieseD.FordB.BraidL. R. (2019). Towards a Consensus Potency Assay for Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: a Matrix Analysis of Cell Source, Donor Variability and Inflammatory Stimuli to Refine Surrogate Markers of Immunomodulation. Cytotherapy21 (5). 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.03.322
82
WieseD. M.BraidL. R. (2020). Transcriptome Profiles Acquired during Cell Expansion and Licensing Validate Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Lineage Genes. Stem Cel Res. Ther.2020. 10.1186/s13287-020-01873-7
83
WieseD. M.RuttanC. C.WoodC. A.FordB. N.BraidL. R. (2019). Accumulating Transcriptome Drift Precedes Cell Aging in Human Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Serially Cultured to Replicative Senescence. Stem Cell Transl Med8 (9), 945–958. 10.1002/sctm.18-0246
84
WilsonA. J.RandE.WebsterA. J.GeneverP. G. (2021). Characterisation of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Clinical Trial Reports: Analysis of Published Descriptors. Stem Cel Res Ther12 (1), 360. 10.1186/s13287-021-02435-1
85
WilsonJ. G.LiuK. D.ZhuoH.CaballeroL.McMillanM.FangX.et al (2015). Mesenchymal Stem (Stromal) Cells for Treatment of ARDS: A Phase 1 Clinical Trial. Lancet Respir. Med.3 (1), 24–32. 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70291-7
86
WrightA.Arthaud-DayM. L.WeissM. L. (2021). Therapeutic Use of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: The Need for Inclusive Characterization Guidelines to Accommodate All Tissue Sources and Species. Front. Cel Developmental Biol.9. 10.3389/fcell.2021.632717
87
XieA. W.ZachariasN. A.BinderB. Y. K.MurphyW. L. (2021). Controlled Aggregation Enhances Immunomodulatory Potential of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Aggregates. Stem Cell Transl Med10 (8), 1184–1201. 10.1002/sctm.19-0414
88
YauT. M.PaganiF. D.ManciniD. M.ChangH. L.LalaA.WooY. J.et al (2019). Intramyocardial Injection of Mesenchymal Precursor Cells and Successful Temporary Weaning from Left Ventricular Assist Device Support in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA321 (12), 1176–1186. 10.1001/jama.2019.2341
89
YinJ. Q.ZhuJ.AnkrumJ. A. (2019). Manufacturing of Primed Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Therapy. Nat. Biomed. Eng.10.1038/s41551-018-0325-8
90
YuanX.RosenbergJ. T.LiuY.GrantS. C.MaT. (2019). Aggregation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells Enhances Survival and Efficacy in Stroke Treatment. Cytotherapy21 (10), 1033–1048. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.04.055
Summary
Keywords
mesenchymal stromal (stem) cell (MSC), ATMP, clinical trial, retrospective analysis, cell therapy (CT), regulatory approval, cell fitness, cell potency
Citation
Wiese DM, Wood CA and Braid LR (2022) From Vial to Vein: Crucial Gaps in Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Clinical Trial Reporting. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 10:867426. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2022.867426
Received
01 February 2022
Accepted
07 March 2022
Published
13 April 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Mayasari Lim, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific, Inc., United States
Reviewed by
Courtney Anne McDonald, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Australia
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Wiese, Wood and Braid.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lorena R. Braid, lorena@aurorabiosolutions.com, lrbraid@sfu.ca
This article was submitted to Stem Cell Research, a section of the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.