A Comprehensive Understanding of UA-ADRCs (Uncultured, Autologous, Fresh, Unmodified, Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells, Isolated at Point of Care) in Regenerative Medicine

Winnier²,

Haenel

et al. 2020

Self Cite

It has become practically impossible to survey the literature on cells derived from adipose tissue for regenerative medicine. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive and translational understanding of the potential of UA-ADRCs (uncultured, unmodified, fresh, autologous adipose derived regenerative cells isolated at the point of care) and its application in regenerative medicine. We provide profound basic and clinical evidence demonstrating that tissue regeneration with UA-ADRCs is safe and effective. ADRCs are neither ‘fat stem cells’ nor could they exclusively be isolated from adipose tissue. ADRCs contain the same adult stem cells ubiquitously present in the walls of blood vessels that are able to differentiate into cells of all three germ layers. Of note, the specific isolation procedure used has a significant impact on the number and viability of cells and hence on safety and efficacy of UA-ADRCs. Furthermore, there is no need to specifically isolate and separate stem cells from the initial mixture of progenitor and stem cells found in ADRCs. Most importantly, UA-ADRCs have the physiological capacity to adequately regenerate tissue without need for more than minimally manipulating, stimulating and/or (genetically) reprogramming the cells for a broad range of clinical applications. Tissue regeneration with UA-ADRCs fulfills the criteria of homologous use as defined by the regulatory authorities.

Section: Detailed Immunohistochemical and Histomorphometric Analysis mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of UA-ADRCs (Uncultured, Autologous, Fresh, Unmodified, Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells, Isolated at Point of Care) in Regenerative Medicine

Winnier²,

Haenel

et al. 2020

Self Cite

Perspective: Why and How Ubiquitously Distributed, Vascular-Associated, Pluripotent Stem Cells in the Adult Body (vaPS Cells) Are the Next Generation of Medicine

Schmitz

Bai

2021

A certain cell type can be isolated from different organs in the adult body that can differentiate into ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm, providing significant support for the existence of a certain type of small, vascular-associated, pluripotent stem cell ubiquitously distributed in all organs in the adult body (vaPS cells). These vaPS cells fundamentally differ from embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells in that the latter possess the necessary genetic guidance that makes them intrinsically pluripotent. In contrast, vaPS cells do not have this intrinsic genetic guidance, but are able to differentiate into somatic cells of all three lineages under guidance of the microenvironment they are located in, independent from the original tissue or organ where they had resided. These vaPS cells are of high relevance for clinical application because they are contained in unmodified, autologous, adipose-derived regenerative cells (UA-ADRCs). The latter can be obtained from and re-applied to the same patient at the point of care, without the need for further processing, manipulation, and culturing. These findings as well as various clinical examples presented in this paper demonstrate the potential of UA-ADRCs for enabling an entirely new generation of medicine for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems.

Methodological Flaws in Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies on the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis with Stem Cells: A Systematic Review

Schmitz

Pearce

et al. 2022

(1) Background: Conclusions of meta-analyses of clinical studies may substantially influence opinions of prospective patients and stakeholders in healthcare. Nineteen meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of primary knee osteoarthritis (pkOA) with stem cells, published between January 2020 and July 2021, came to inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of this treatment modality. It is possible that a separate meta-analysis based on an independent, systematic assessment of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells may reach a different conclusion. (2) Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical studies and meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells. All clinical studies and meta-analyses identified were evaluated in detail, as were all sub-analyses included in the meta-analyses. (3) Results: The inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of treating pkOA with stem cells in the 19 assessed meta-analyses were most probably based on substantial differences in literature search strategies among different authors, misconceptions about meta-analyses themselves, and misconceptions about the comparability of different types of stem cells with regard to their safety and regenerative potential. An independent, systematic review of the literature yielded a total of 183 studies, of which 33 were randomized clinical trials, including a total of 6860 patients with pkOA. However, it was not possible to perform a scientifically sound meta-analysis. (4) Conclusions: Clinicians should interpret the results of the 19 assessed meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells with caution and should be cautious of the conclusions drawn therein. Clinicians and researchers should strive to participate in FDA and/or EMA reviewed and approved clinical trials to provide clinically and statistically valid efficacy.