Evaluating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis with preclinical meta-analyses prior to initiating a first-in-human trial

  1. Manoj M Lalu
  2. Katrina J Sullivan
  3. Shirley HJ Mei
  4. David Moher
  5. Alexander Straus
  6. Dean A Fergusson
  7. Duncan J Stewart
  8. Mazen Jazi
  9. Malcolm MacLeod
  10. Brent Winston
  11. John Marshall
  12. Brian Hutton
  13. Keith R Walley
  14. Lauralyn McIntyre  Is a corresponding author
  15. on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group
  1. The Ottawa Hospital, Canada
  2. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada
  3. The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  4. University of Calgary, Canada
  5. St. Michaels Hospital, The University of Toronto, Canada
  6. University of Ottawa, Canada

Abstract

Evaluation of preclinical evidence prior to initiating early-phase clinical studies has typically been performed by selecting individual studies in a non-systematic process that may introduce bias. Thus, in preparation for a first-in-human trial of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for septic shock, we applied systematic review methodology to evaluate all published preclinical evidence. We identified 20 controlled comparison experiments (980 animals from 18 publications) of in vivo sepsis models. Meta-analysis demonstrated that MSC treatment of preclinical sepsis significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.40, latest timepoint reported for each study) over a range of experimental conditions. Risk of bias was unclear as few studies described elements such as randomization and no studies included an appropriately calculated sample size. Moreover, the presence of publication bias resulted in a ~30% overestimate of effect and threats to validity limit the strength of our conclusions. This novel prospective application of systematic review methodology serves as a template to evaluate preclinical evidence prior to initiating first-in-human clinical studies.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Manoj M Lalu

    Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0322-382X
  2. Katrina J Sullivan

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Shirley HJ Mei

    Regenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. David Moher

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alexander Straus

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dean A Fergusson

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Duncan J Stewart

    Regenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9113-8691
  8. Mazen Jazi

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Malcolm MacLeod

    Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Brent Winston

    Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. John Marshall

    Departments of Surgery and Critical Care Medicine, Keenan Research Centre of the Li KaShing Knowledge Institute, St. Michaels Hospital, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Brian Hutton

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Keith R Walley

    Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Lauralyn McIntyre

    Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
    For correspondence
    lmcintyre@ohri.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7421-1407

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC/L000970/1)

  • David Moher

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2016, Lalu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,230
    views
  • 449
    downloads
  • 66
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Manoj M Lalu
  2. Katrina J Sullivan
  3. Shirley HJ Mei
  4. David Moher
  5. Alexander Straus
  6. Dean A Fergusson
  7. Duncan J Stewart
  8. Mazen Jazi
  9. Malcolm MacLeod
  10. Brent Winston
  11. John Marshall
  12. Brian Hutton
  13. Keith R Walley
  14. Lauralyn McIntyre
  15. on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group
(2016)
Evaluating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis with preclinical meta-analyses prior to initiating a first-in-human trial
eLife 5:e17850.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17850

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17850

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Rashmi Sukumaran, Achuthsankar S Nair, Moinak Banerjee
    Research Article

    Burden of stroke differs by region, which could be attributed to differences in comorbid conditions and ethnicity. Genomewide variation acts as a proxy marker for ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. We present an integrated approach to understand this variation by considering prevalence and mortality rates of stroke and its comorbid risk for 204 countries from 2009 to 2019, and Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) risk variant for all these conditions. Global and regional trend analysis of rates using linear regression, correlation, and proportion analysis, signifies ethnogeographic differences. Interestingly, the comorbid conditions that act as risk drivers for stroke differed by regions, with more of metabolic risk in America and Europe, in contrast to high systolic blood pressure in Asian and African regions. GWAS risk loci of stroke and its comorbid conditions indicate distinct population stratification for each of these conditions, signifying for population-specific risk. Unique and shared genetic risk variants for stroke, and its comorbid and followed up with ethnic-specific variation can help in determining regional risk drivers for stroke. Unique ethnic-specific risk variants and their distinct patterns of linkage disequilibrium further uncover the drivers for phenotypic variation. Therefore, identifying population- and comorbidity-specific risk variants might help in defining the threshold for risk, and aid in developing population-specific prevention strategies for stroke.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Renan Maestri, Benoît Perez-Lamarque ... Hélène Morlon
    Research Article

    Several coronaviruses infect humans, with three, including the SARS-CoV2, causing diseases. While coronaviruses are especially prone to induce pandemics, we know little about their evolutionary history, host-to-host transmissions, and biogeography. One of the difficulties lies in dating the origination of the family, a particularly challenging task for RNA viruses in general. Previous cophylogenetic tests of virus-host associations, including in the Coronaviridae family, have suggested a virus-host codiversification history stretching many millions of years. Here, we establish a framework for robustly testing scenarios of ancient origination and codiversification versus recent origination and diversification by host switches. Applied to coronaviruses and their mammalian hosts, our results support a scenario of recent origination of coronaviruses in bats and diversification by host switches, with preferential host switches within mammalian orders. Hotspots of coronavirus diversity, concentrated in East Asia and Europe, are consistent with this scenario of relatively recent origination and localized host switches. Spillovers from bats to other species are rare, but have the highest probability to be towards humans than to any other mammal species, implicating humans as the evolutionary intermediate host. The high host-switching rates within orders, as well as between humans, domesticated mammals, and non-flying wild mammals, indicates the potential for rapid additional spreading of coronaviruses across the world. Our results suggest that the evolutionary history of extant mammalian coronaviruses is recent, and that cases of long-term virus–host codiversification have been largely over-estimated.