Umbilical cord blood-derived cell therapy for perinatal brain injury: A systematic review & meta-analysis of preclinical studies - Part B

Abstract

IntroductionWe previously described preclinical literature, which supports umbilical cord blood-derived cell (UCBC) therapy use for perinatal brain injury. However, efficacy of UCBCs may be influenced by different patient populations and intervention characteristics.ObjectivesTo systematically review effects of UCBCs on brain outcomes in animal models of perinatal brain injury across subgroups to better understand contribution of model type (preterm versus term), brain injury type, UCB cell type, route of administration, timing of intervention, cell dosage and number of doses.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed to identify studies using UCBC therapy in animal models of perinatal brain injury. Subgroup differences were measured by chi2test where possible.ResultsDifferential benefits of UCBCs were seen in a number of subgroup analyses including intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) vs. hypoxia ischaemia (HI) model (apoptosis white matter (WM): chi2=4.07; P=0.04, neuroinflammation-TNF-α: chi2=5.99; P=0.01), UCB-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) vs. UCB-derived mononuclear cells (MNCs) (oligodendrocyte WM: chi2=5.01; P=0.03, neuroinflammation-TNF-α: chi2=3.93; P=0.05, apoptosis grey matter (GM), astrogliosis WM) and intraventricular/intrathecal vs. systemic routes of administration (microglial activation GM: chi2=7.51; P=0.02, astrogliosis WM: chi2=12.44; P=0.002). We identified a serious risk of bias and overall low certainty of evidence.ConclusionsPreclinical evidence suggests greater efficacy for UCBCs in IVH compared to HI injury model, use of UCB-MSCs compared to UCB-MNCs, and use of local administrative routes compared to systemic routes in animal models of perinatal brain injury. Further research is needed to improve certainty of evidence found and address knowledge gaps.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTIn neonatal medicine there is a clear need for the development of new therapies that can provide neuroregenerative benefits for infants with brain injuries. This review offers a unique and comprehensive resource to inform the development of future preclinical and clinical studies. In part A of this review, we systematically reviewed the preclinical literature surrounding UCBCs as a therapy for perinatal brain injury. In part B of this review, we investigated the effect variables, such as UCB cell type, timing of administration and dosage, have on the efficacy of UCB-derived cell therapy in animal models of perinatal brain injury. We identified UCBCs to show greater efficacy in the brain injury model of IVH compared to HI, the use of UCB-derived MSCs compared to MNCs and the use of local administrative routes compared to systemic routes. In addition to this, we identified knowledge gaps such as the limited preclinical literature surrounding the effect of dose number and sex.

Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Cell Therapy for Perinatal Brain Injury: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies

“…A flow diagram of study selection is presented in Figure 1, using the PRISMA flowchart template, as previously described [22,23]. The search yielded a total of 1082 citations.…”

“…The characteristics of included studies are summarised in Table 1, as previously described [23]. The most common animal model studied were rats (67%, n = 37), followed by mice (15%, n = 8), sheep (13%, n = 7) and rabbits (6%, n = 3).…”

“…The risk of bias of included studies is summarised in Figure 6, as previously described. [23] No studies were assessed as low risk of bias across all domains. Selection bias was judged as low across the majority of studies for sequence generation, with 36 studies reporting randomised allocation to experimental groups.…”

“…The risk of bias of included studies is summarised in Figure 6, as previously described [23]. No studies were assessed as low risk of bias across all domains.…”

“…Additionally, in vitro studies, case studies and studies that were not primary research (i.e., systematic reviews, literature reviews) were excluded. S1, as previously also described [23].…”