4.6 Review

Stem Cell-Based Regenerative Therapy and Derived Products in COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CELLS
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells11111797

关键词

COPD; mesenchymal stem cells; meta-analysis; regenerative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that stem cell-based regenerative therapies and derived products may be effective in improving lung function and walking distance in COPD patients, but did not reduce the risk of hospitalization due to acute exacerbations. Further large and well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the beneficial impact of these therapies in COPD.
COPD is an incurable disorder, characterized by a progressive alveolar tissue destruction and defective mechanisms of repair and defense leading to emphysema. Currently, treatment for COPD is exclusively symptomatic; therefore, stem cell-based therapies represent a promising therapeutic approach to regenerate damaged structures of the respiratory system and restore lung function. The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative synthesis of the efficacy profile of stem cell-based regenerative therapies and derived products in COPD patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P. Data from 371 COPD patients were extracted from 11 studies. Active treatments elicited a strong tendency towards significance in FEV1 improvement (+71 mL 95% CI -2-145; p = 0.056) and significantly increased 6MWT (52 m 95% CI 18-87; p < 0.05) vs. baseline or control. Active treatments did not reduce the risk of hospitalization due to acute exacerbations (RR 0.77 95% CI 0.40-1.49; p > 0.05). This study suggests that stem cell-based regenerative therapies and derived products may be effective to treat COPD patients, but the current evidence comes from small clinical trials. Large and well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to really quantify the beneficial impact of stem cell-based regenerative therapy and derived products in COPD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据