Open Access

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for Crohn’s disease

  • Yun Qiu1,
  • Man-ying Li1,
  • Ting Feng1,
  • Rui Feng1,
  • Ren Mao1,
  • Bai-li Chen1,
  • Yao He1,
  • Zhi-rong Zeng1,
  • Sheng-hong Zhang1Email author and
  • Min-hu Chen1Email author
Contributed equally
Stem Cell Research & Therapy20178:136

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-017-0570-x

Published: 6 June 2017

Abstract

Background and aims

Stem cell therapy (SCT) for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) is still in its infancy, and whether SCT is associated with improved outcomes is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of patients receiving SCT.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies that reported the use of stem cells for the treatment of patients with CD. Raw data from included studies were pooled for effect estimates. Subgroup analyses were performed for exploration of heterogeneity regarding all outcomes.

Results

We analyzed 21 studies comprising 514 patients with active CD. A random-effects meta-analysis of studies of SCT as systemic infusion showed 56% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33–76, n = 150) of patients achieved clinical response. Similarly, random-effects pooled rates of clinical or endoscopic remission were 46% (95% CI 25–69, n = 116) and 15% (95% CI 0–50, n = 48), respectively. A random-effects meta-analysis of all perianal CD studies showed that 57% (95% CI 44–69%, n = 251) of patients had healed fistula with SCT, with an odds ratio of 3.83 (95% CI 1.06–13.86, n = 121, P = 0.04) versus control. The pooled rate of clinical recurrence was high at 16% (95% CI 4–34, n = 101) with follow-up >12 months. The pooled rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) and SAEs related to SCT were 12% (95% CI 6–23, n = 378) and 8% (95% CI 3–18, n = 378), respectively. The Egger test suggests no publication bias existed for fistula healing (P = 0.36), but did for clinical response (P = 0.003).

Conclusions

SCT seems potentially effective and may serve as an alternative treatment for refractory active CD. Toxicity will remain the most significant barrier to systemic SCT in patients with CD.

Keywords

Crohn’s disease Stem cells Meta-analysis Efficacy Adverse effects

Background

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract that can result in lifelong ill health [1]. Immunosuppressive drugs, including biologicals, are the standard of care for CD, but some patients do not respond or lose response to treatment [2, 3]. Therefore, alternative treatments for refractory CD remain an unmet need.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) might play a role in some of these treatment-resistant cases [4]. Previous studies have indicated that allogeneic HSCT may reset the immune system at a genetic level [5, 6], and autologous HSCT eliminates aberrant clones by immunoablation and replacement with uncommitted stem cells (SCs), leading to de novo generation of an altered T-cell repertoire [7]. Case reports and series describe long-term treatment-free disease regression with autologous [810] and allogeneic [5, 6] HSCT in some [6, 11, 12] but not all patients [810] with CD. However, the recent Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation International Crohn Disease (ASTIC) trial [13] failed to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in sustained disease remission at 1-year of autologous HSCT compared with conventional therapy. These findings raise doubt about HSCT for patients with refractory CD.

Perianal fistulas are very common complications, appearing in 25% of CD patients. Of these, approximately half are complex. The only approved drug that has shown efficacy in a randomized clinical trial is infliximab [14, 15]. Few treatment options exist for drug treatment-refractory patients, and repeated surgical options are associated with a significant risk of permanent stoma. These findings emphasize the need for novel treatment options for treatment-refractory complex perianal fistulas in patients with CD. Initial clinical results [16, 17] suggested mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) might have therapeutic potential in this setting.

Given the immunoregulatory potential of SCs, multiple studies have been conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of stem cell therapy (SCT) in CD. In this study, we perform a meta-analysis of feasibility and toxicity of SCT for the treatment of CD.

Methods

The study was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [18].

Literature search

We identified relevant literature (published articles and abstracts) by performing a systematic search of three databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, and Embase (initial search February 5, 2015; updated October 15, 2016). Keywords used were (all fields): (“inflammatory bowel disease” or “crohn’s disease” or “crohn disease” or “enteritis”) and (“stem cell*” OR “precursor cell*” OR “progenitor cell*” OR “Stromal cell*”), and any appropriate abbreviations. For PubMed, all relevant MeSH terms were used. The final queries were validated by manual review and matching results.

The conference proceeding abstracts for annual meetings of European (European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation congress) and American (Digestive Disease Week) Congresses were searched between 2002 and 2016.

Study selection

We finally performed a manual selection of studies which satisfied the following criteria: (a) observational (prospective or post hoc analysis of prospectively obtained cohort) or interventional design (randomized or non-randomized); (b) established diagnosis of CD by accepted criteria not in clinical or endoscopic remission at study outset; and (c) clear definition of efficacy and adverse events (AEs). Studies with exclusively pediatric patients (<15 years), a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis, indeterminate colitis, or an unclear diagnosis of CD and case reports were also excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Eligible articles were reviewed in a blind manner by two different investigators (YQ and MYL), and the results of the primary research studies were abstracted onto specially designed data extraction forms. Disagreement in data extraction was resolved by consensus with MHC.

Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool [19] and Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) [20], respectively. For the NOS, studies scoring >7 (of 9) were considered high quality.

Outcomes assessed

The primary endpoint was clinical efficacy (e.g., clinical response or remission, fistula healing as defined by the primary study) of SCs for the treatment of patients with CD. Secondary outcomes were safety (e.g., AEs, severe AEs (SAEs)) and other measures of disease activity (endoscopic remission, clinical recurrence) of SCT for CD.

Data synthesis and analysis

We calculated incidence estimates with the variance-stabilizing double arcsine transformation [21] because the inverse variance weight in fixed-effects meta-analyses is suboptimum when dealing with binary data with low incidences. Additionally, the transformed incidences are weighted very slightly towards 50%, and studies with incidences of zero can thus be included in the analysis. We used the Wilson method [22] to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around these estimates because the asymptotic method produces intervals which can extend below zero. Heterogeneity due to study variation was assessed using the χ2 test [23, 24], with a P value of <0.10 being considered as statistically significant.

Publication bias

Funnel-plot asymmetry as proposed by Egger et al. [25] was used to investigate the possibility of publication bias.

The meta-analysis was performed using the metaprop command of the meta package in R (version 3.2.0) [26] and Stata (version 12.1) with the commands metareg (for metaregression). All statistical tests were two-sided, and statistical significance was defined as a P value <0.05.

Outcomes

The initial search strategy yielded 4828 abstracts for review, of which 108 were selected for detailed review. Seventy-one studies were excluded for being non-human or safety studies or studies with exclusively pediatric patients, or for having a diagnosis of UC or indeterminate colitis or mixed irritable bowel syndrome for which the CD data could not be separated. Sixteen studies were further excluded because they were case studies or duplicate studies (Fig. 1; Additional file 1: Table S1).
Fig. 1

Study selection

The main characteristics of the included 20 studies [9, 10, 13, 16, 2742] are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. The included two Park et al. studies [32, 37] and two Cho et al. studies [33, 38] were not duplicated. Among the included 20 studies, three [9, 10, 13] were about the systemic infusion of hematopoietic stem cells, seven [27, 2931, 36, 39, 40] the systemic infusion of bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs), and ten [16, 28, 3235, 37, 38, 41, 42] the local injection of MSCs; the numbers of transplanted SCs ranged from 107 to 1.5 × 1010. All studies defined clinical or endoscopic response with the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and CD Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS). All 15 observational studies were considered as high quality (scoring >7) using the NOS and the 2/6 RCTs [13, 27, 28, 37, 39, 42] had low risk of bias. Detailed quality assessments are provided in Additional file 2: Figure S1, Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 3: Table S2.
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease

Study

Number of subjects

Sex (M:F)

Age (years): mean (SD)

Duration (years): mean (SD)

Prior medications, n(%)

Bowel surgery

Concomitant medications

CDAI: mean (SD)

Design

Location

     

IM

Biological

Steroid

 

IM

Biological

Steroid

5-ASA

   

Burt et al. 2010 [9]

24

12:12

27

10

Y

Y

Y

71% (17/24)

N

N

Y

-

235

Phase I/IIa open label, single arm

USA

Cassinotti et al. 2012 [43]

10

7:3

-

-

-

 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase I/IIa open label, single arm

Italy

Hasselblatt et al. 2012 [10]

12

8:4

36.5 (range 24–50)

12.7 (range 2–24)

Y

Y

Y

8

Y

Y

Y

Y

285 ± 79

Phase I/IIa open label, single arm

Germany

Hawkey et al. 2015 [13]

23

11:13

Median 34.1

14.9 (IQR,9.9-16.9)

-

-

N

2 (IQR,0.5–3.5)

N

N

N

-

326 (range 251–414)

RCT, multicenter

European

Onken et al. 2006 [27]

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase II, open label, double arm, randomized

USA

Duijvestein et al. 2010 [29]

10

2:8

Median 32.5

3 ~ 12

Y

Y

Y

4

Y

N

Y

Y

Median 299.5 (range 255–442)

Phase I, open label, single arm

Netherlands

Forbes et al. 2014 [36]

16

6:10

21–55

-

-

Y

-

3

Y

N

Y

-

>250

Phase II, open label, single arm multicenter

Australia

Lazebnik et al. 2010 [30]

50 (11 CD)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

N

N

Y

-

261.5 ± 18.2 (range 206–298)

Open label, double arm

Russia

Dhere et al. 2016 [40]

12

6:6

18–52

-

Y

Y

N

-

N

N

N

-

>220

Phase I

USA

Garcia-Olmo et al. 2005 [16]

5

3:2

35.1 ± 2.4

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

-

Phase I, open label, single arm

Spain

Garcia-Olmo et al. 2009 [28]

49 (14 CD)

10:14

42.64 ± 10.93

-

6 (25)

N

-

Fistula:17 (71)

-

-

-

-

-

Phase II, open label, double arm, randomized

Spain

Ciccocioppo et al. 2011 [31]

12

8:4

Median 32

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

294 ± 49

Open label, single arm

Italy

Park et al. 2012 [32]

11

6:5

24.6

-

-

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase I/IIa open label, single arm

Korea

de la Portilla et al. 2013 [34]

24

11:13

36 ± 9

-

-

-

-

-

Y

N

Y

Y

-

Phase I/IIa open label, single arm

Spain

Cho et al. 2013 [33]

10

4:6

26.5 ± 6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase I, open label, single arm

Korea

Lee et al. 2013 [35]

33

22:11

26.7 ± 5.6

54.6 ± 40.1 months

-

-

-

-

41 (95.3)

-

-

-

-

Phase II, open label, single arm

Korea

Park et al. 2014 [37]

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Multicenter, randomized phase I/IIa

Korea

Cho et al. 2015 [38]

41

28:13

26.2 ± 5.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

f/u of phase II

Korea

Molendijk et al. 2015 [39]

21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Double-blind RCT

Netherlands

Lightner et al. 2016 [41]

7

3:4

31

4.5

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Phase I

USA

Panés et al. 2016 [42]

212

60:47

39 ± 13

12.1 ± 10

89 (83%)

83 (78%)

6/103 (5%)

-

44 (41%)

37 (35%)

6/103 (5%)

-

88.7 ± 48.8

Phase III double-blind RCT multicenter

European, Israel

Abbreviations: CD Crohn’s disease, CDAI Crohn Disease Activity Index, N no, Y yes, 5-ASA 5-Aminosalicylic acid, IM immunomodulators

Table 2

Characteristics of included studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease

Study

Procedure

Infusion

Number of cells

Outcome

Criteria: clinical remission

MRI

Remission/response/closure (number of patients, time of evaluation)

SAEs

Infections

Recurrence (number of patients, time of evaluation)

 

Autologous

Source

         

Burt et al. 2010 [9]

Y

HSCs

S

2. 10E6/kg

CDAI, CSI

CDAI <150

-

Clinical: 24 (6–12 m)

1 not related

11

9% (12 m)

     

CSI <12

    

37% (24 m)

     

Asymptomatic with no IM

    

43% (36 m)

Cassinotti et al. 2012 [43]

Y

HSCs

S

Unknown

CDAI

-

-

Clinical: 10 (3 m)

None

-

20% (12 m)

       

Endoscopic: 5 (3 m)

  

50% (24 m)

Hasselblatt et al. 2012 [10]

Y

HSCs

S

Unknown

CDAI

CDAI <150

-

Clinical: 5 (6 m)

4 related

-

7 (37.2 m)

       

Endoscopic: 5 (6 m)

Fever, renal failure

  

Hawkey et al. 2015 [13]

Y

HSCs

S

3 ~ 8.10E6/kg

CDAI

Sustained disease remission:

-

2/23 versus 1/22 (12 m)

76 versus 38 related

9 SAEs in 5 patients undergoing HSCT:

-

(ASTIC)

     

1) CDAI <150 for >3 m

 

10 versus 2 (1 year)

 

3 EBV reactivation, 2 CMV reactivation,

 
     

2) No active treatment in the last 3 m

   

1 herpes zoster, 1 BK virus, 1 intestinal adenovirus, 1 VZV

 
     

3) No mucosal erosion or ulceration in GI tract

   

8 neutropenic sepsis

 

Onken et al. 2006 [27]

N

Prochymal™

S

Unknown

CDAI

 

-

Clinical: 9/3 (14 d)

1 unrelated

None

-

Duijvestein et al. 2010 [29]

Y

BMSCs

S

2 × 1/2.10E6/kg

CDAI, CDEIS

Remission: CDAI <150

-

Clinical: 3/0 (6 w)

None

None

-

     

Response: a drop in CDAI >70

 

Endoscopic: 2/0 (6 w)

   

Lazebnik et al. 2010 [30]

N

BMSCs

S

150–200.10E8

CDAI, RCAI, Mayo, and Gebs scales

-

-

Clinical: 11/0 (4–8 m, CD)

-

None

-

       

39/0 (4–8 m, UC)

   

Forbes et al. 2014 [36]

N

BMSCs

S

4 × 2.10E6/kg

CDAI, CDEIS

Remission: CDAI <150

-

Clinical: 12/8 (42 d)

1 unrelated

1 gastroenteritis

-

     

Endoscopic improvement: CDEIS <3 or a decrease by >5

 

Endoscopic: 7/0 (42 d)

   

Dhere et al. 2016 [40]

Y

BMSCs

S

2/5/10.10E6/kg

CDAI

Response: CDAI + CRP

-

Clinical: 5/- (2 w)

7

1 acute appendicitis

-

        

2 related

1 C. difficile colitis

 

Garcia-Olmo et al. 2005 [16]

Y

ASCs

L

Unknown

Fistula closure

-

N

8 fistulas in 4: 2/6 (8 w)

None

None

-

Garcia-Olmo et al. 2009 [28]

Y

ASCs + Fg:25 (7 CD)

L

20/60.10E6

Fistula closure

-

N

ASCs + Fg: -/1 (7 CD, 8 w)

None

Perianal sepsis: ASC group (n = 3, 12%) versus Fg alone (n = 9, 36%) (P = 0.04).

Group B: 3 (12 m)

 

Fg:24 (7 CD)

     

Fg: 2/5 (7 CD, 8 w)

  

No data for CD

Ciccocioppo et al. 2011 [31]

Y

BM-MSCs

L

50.10E6

Complete closure

CDAI + PDAI

Y

3/7 (12 m)

None

None

None (12 m)

Park et al.2012 [32]

Y

ASCs + Fg

L

1 ~ 4.10E7

Fistula healing

-

N

-/9 (8 w)

-

-

-

de la Portilla et al. 2013 [34]

N

ASCs

L

20/60.10E6

Fistula closure

-

Y

23 fistulas in 22: 5/18 (6 m)

2

Infections and infestations 9/7

-

         

Anal abscess 5/4

 
         

Anal fistula infection 2/2

 

Cho et al. 2013 [33]

Y

ASCs

L

10/20/40.10E6

Fistula healing

-

N

1/3 (2 m)

None

3 enterocolitis

3 (8 m)

Lee et al. 2013 [35]

Y

ASCs

L

30/60.10E6

Fistula healing

-

N

5/27 (2 m)

None

No ASC-related AEs

3 (12 m)

         

1 grade 4 peritonitis caused by CD

 

Park et al. 2014 [37]

N

ASCs

L

10/30.10E6

Complete closure

-

N

-/1 (8 w)

-

-

-

       

-/3 (8 m)

   

Cho et al. 2015 [38]

Y

ASCs

L

30/60.10E6

Fistula healing

-

N

28/35 (12 m)

None

None

3/26 (12 m)

       

27/36 (24 m)

  

4/24 (24 m)

Molendijk et al. 2015 [39]

Y

BMSCs (n = 15)

L

10/30/90.10E6

Fistula healing

-

Y

8 versus 1 (week 6)

None

None

-

 

Placebo

     

7 versus 2(wk 12)

   

(n = 6)

 
       

9 versus 2 (week 24)

   

Lightner et al. 2016 [41]

Y

ASCs

L

Unknown

Fistula healing

-

Y

6/6 (6 m)

-

-

-

Panés et al. 2016 [42]

N

ASCs (Cx601)

L

120.10E6

Combined remission

-

Y

53/107 versus 36/105

SAE: 18/103 versus 14/103

Anal abscess (6 versus 9)

-

 

Saline

      

SAE related: 5/103 versus 7/103

Proctalgia (5 versus 9)

 

Abbreviations: ASC adipose-derived MSC, BMSC bone marrow-derived MSC, CD Crohn’s disease, CDAI Crohn Disease Activity Index, CDEIS CD Endoscopic Index of Severity, CSI Crohn Severity Index, Fg fibrin glue, GI gastrointestinal, HSC hematopoietic stem cell, L local, m month, N no, S systemic, SAE serious adverse event, w week, Y yes, RCAI Rahmilevich Clinical Activity Index, PDAI perianal disease activity index, IM immunomodulators, CRP C-reactive protein, UC ulcerative colits, VZV varicella-zoster virus

Efficacy of SCT as a systemic infusion for CD

Clinical response

Eleven studies [16, 27, 2931, 3336, 40, 41] reported raw data on clinical response of patients with SCT. Rates of clinical response ranged from 10 to 100%. The random-effects pooled rate of clinical response was 56% (95% CI 33–76, n = 150); heterogeneity was pronounced (χ2 = 1.88, P < 0.001; I 2 = 78.6%; Fig. 2a). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the source of the stem cells, i.e., HSCT or MSCT, and the method of SC infusion had substantial effects on the efficacy of SCs as well as decreased the high heterogeneity.
Fig. 2

Estimated incidence of a clinical response, b clinical remission, and c endoscopic remission among CD patients who received SCT. ASC adipose mesenchymal stem cell, BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell

Six studies [27, 2931, 36, 40] reported raw data on the outcome of patients with bone marrow-derived MSC (BMSC) therapy. The pooled rate of clinical response was 59% (95% CI 34–80, n = 79) compared to 51% (95% CI 13–88, five studies [16, 3335, 41], n = 71) for patients who had ASC infusion (Table 3).
Table 3

Summary of subgroup analysis of stem cells for the treatment of patients with CD

 

Clinical response

Clinical remission

Fistula closure

Items

n

Heterogeneity

ES

95% CI

n

Heterogeneity

ES

95% CI

n

Heterogeneity

ES

95% CI

 

I 2

P

   

I 2

P

   

I 2

P

 

Overall

11

78.6%

<0.001

0.56

[0.33–0.76]

8

68.5%

0.002

0.46

[0.25–0.69]

12

59.9%

0.003

0.57

[0.44–0.69]

Source

 HSC

0

-

-

-

-

4

75.9%

0.006

0.73

[0.36–0.93]

2

80.8%

0.022

0.29

[0.03–0.85]

 BMSC

6

69.8%

0.005

0.59

[0.34–0.80]

4

60.1%

0.057

0.23

[0.07–0.54]

2

0.0%

0.740

0.60

[0.44–0.75]

 ASC

5

84.6%

<0.001

0.51

[0.13–0.88]

0

-

-

-

-

9

65.3%

0.003

0.62

[0.42–0.79]

Source

 Autologous

7

49.6%

0.064

0.31

[0.17–0.49]

5

76.4%

0.002

0.61

[0.25–0.88]

9

59.5%

0.011

0.62

[0.44–0.77]

 Allogeneic

4

26.7%

0.251

0.86

[0.71–0.94]

3

56%

0.103

0.32

[0.11–0.62]

4

30.2%

0.231

0.47

[0.33–0.61]

Routine

 Systemic

5

67.7%

0.001

0.66

[0.39–0.86]

8

68.5%

0.002

0.46

[0.25–0.69]

2

80.8%

0.023

0.29

[0.03–0.85]

 Local

6

81.0%

<0.001

0.45

[0.16–0.79]

0

-

-

-

-

11

57.9%

0.002

0.60

[0.47–0.72]

Abbreviations: ASC adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell, BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell, HSC hematopoietic stem cell

Seven studies [16, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 41] reported results in patients with autologous SCT. The pooled rate of clinical response was 31% (95% CI 17–49, n = 89) compared to 86% (95% CI 71–94, four studies [27, 30, 34, 36], n = 61) for patients who underwent allogeneic SCT (Table 3).

The pooled rate of clinical response was 66% (95% CI 39–86, five studies [27, 29, 30, 36, 40], n = 59) in patients who received systemic SCT compared to 45% (95% CI 16–79, six studies [16, 31, 3335, 41], n = 91) for patients with local SCT (Table 3).

Clinical remission

Eight studies [9, 10, 13, 27, 29, 30, 36, 43] reported raw data on clinical remission (mainly defined as a CDAI <150; Tables 1 and 2) of patients with SCT. A random-effects meta-analysis of all studies of SCT as systemic infusion showed that 46% (95% CI 25–69, n = 116) of patients achieved clinical remission after infusion of SCs (Fig. 2b). Heterogeneity was modest (χ2 = 1.11, P = 0.002; I 2 = 68.5%).

Four studies [9, 10, 13, 43] reported raw data on the outcome of patients with HSCT. The pooled rate of clinical remission was 73% (95% CI 36–93, n = 69) in patients who received HSCT compared to 23% (95% CI 7–54, four studies [27, 29, 30, 36], n = 47) of patients who received MSCT (Table 3).

Endoscopic remission

Four studies [10, 29, 36, 43] reported raw data on the endoscopic remission of patients with SCT. Rates of endoscopic remission ranged from 0–50% (Fig. 2c). The random-effects pooled rate of endoscopic remission was 15% (95% CI 0–50, n = 48); heterogeneity was pronounced (χ2 = 0.42, P < 0.001; I 2 = 83.9%).

Efficacy of SCT for perianal CD (local therapy)

Thirteen studies [8, 10, 16, 28, 3135, 37, 39, 41, 42] reported raw data on the efficacy of SCT for perianal CD of patients with SC injection. A random-effects meta-analysis of all perianal CD studies showed that 57% (95% CI 44%–69%, n = 251) of patients had healed fistula after local MSC injection (Fig. 3a) with mild heterogeneity (χ2 = 0.47, P = 0.003; I 2 = 59.9%).
Fig. 3

Forest plot of a studies evaluating healing of perianal fistulas (perianal CD) with SCT. b Comparison of SCT versus control. ASC adipose mesenchymal stem cell, BMSC bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell, HSCT hematopoietic stem cell

Nine studies [16, 28, 3235, 37, 41, 42] reported raw data on the outcome of patients who received ASC injection. The random-effects pooled rate of fistula healing was 60% (95% CI 44–75, n = 203) compared to 29% (95% CI 3–85, two studies [8, 10], n = 24) for patients who received HSCT and 62% (95% CI 42–79, two studies [31, 39], n = 24) for patients who received BMSC (Table 3).

Nine studies [8, 10, 16, 3133, 35, 39, 41] reported results in patients with autologous SCT with a pooled rate of fistula healing of 62% (95% CI 44–77, n = 113) compared to 47% (95% CI 33–61, four studies [28, 34, 37, 42], n = 138) for patients who underwent allogeneic SCT (Table 3). No heterogeneity existed between the studies.

The pooled rate of fistula healing was 29% (95% CI 3–85, two studies [8, 10], n = 24) for patients who received systemic SCT compared to 60% (95% CI 47–72, 11 studies [16, 28, 3135, 37, 39, 41, 42], n = 227) for patients who received local SCT (Table 3).

Comparison of SC versus control

Among the 13 studies, five [27, 28, 37, 39, 42] were double-armed; both Onken et al. [27] and Park et al. [37] compared two different doses of SCs. Thus, three studies [28, 39, 42] were pooled, yielding an odds ratio (OR) of 3.83 (95% CI 1.06–13.86, n = 121, P = 0.04) for achieving fistula healing in patients who received SCT versus control (Fig. 3b). Heterogeneity was modest (χ2 = 6.37, P = 0.04; I 2 = 69%).

Recurrence

Six studies [9, 10, 31, 33, 35, 43] reported raw data on recurrence for patients with SCT. Rates of recurrence ranged from 0 to 58% with a follow-up of >12 months (Fig. 4). The random-effects pooled rate of recurrence was 16% (95% CI 4–34, n = 101); heterogeneity was pronounced (χ2 = 0.15, P = 0.004; I 2 = 71.3%).
Fig. 4

Estimated incidence of clinical recurrence among CD patients who received SCT

Three studies [9, 10, 43] reported raw data on the outcome of patients with HSCT. The pooled rate of clinical remission was 25% (95% CI 6–64, n = 46) for patients who received HSCT compared to 17% (95% CI 5–45, four studies [33, 35], n = 43) for patients who received ASCs and 4% (95% CI 0–40, four studies [31], n = 12) for patients who received BMSCs.

Safety profile

Overall, the included studies demonstrate that administration of SCs could lead to minor adverse reactions like perianal sepsis; however, serious adverse reactions leading to hospitalization are less common and perhaps related to underlying CD activity (Table 2). Eighteen [9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 27, 29, 31, 3342] of 20 studies reported raw data on severe adverse events (SAEs) of patients with SCT. Rates of SAE ranged from 0–83%. The random-effects pooled rate of SAEs was 12% (95% CI 6–23, n = 378); heterogeneity was modest (χ2 = 1.68, P < 0.001; I 2 = 73.8%; Fig. 5). The random-effects pooled rate of SAEs related to SCT was 8% (95% CI 3–18, n = 378); heterogeneity was modest (P < 0.001; I 2 = 74.2.6%).
Fig. 5

Estimated incidence of SAEs among CD patients who received SCT

Publication bias and heterogeneity

A funnel plot generated for the primary outcome suggested no publication bias (Fig. 6), as did an Egger test for fistula healing (t = −0.97, P = 0.36), but not for clinical response (t = −4.91, P = 0.003).
Fig. 6

Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias for evaluating clinical response. S.e. standard error

Discussion

Our meta-analysis suggests that SCT has good therapeutic potential with relatively low risk of AEs for patients with CD, particularly for those who have perianal disease and are treated with local therapy.

MSCs have regenerative and immunomodulatory properties which lead to reduction of inflammation and healing of affected intestinal tissue. A previous meta-analysis showed that 40.5% (95% CI 7.5–78.5) of patients achieved remission after systemic infusion of MSCs [44] compared to 23% (95% CI 7–54) in our study. Autologous and allogeneic MSC administration are both being evaluated; their unique cell surface HLA characteristics allow for therapy with unrelated donor cells without increasing the risk of rejection by the host. According to our study, the pooled rate of clinical remission was 32% (95% CI 11–62) for patients who underwent allogeneic MSCT compared to 61% (95% CI 25–88) for patients who underwent autologous SCT (Table 3). However, patients who underwent allogeneic MSCT had a relatively higher pooled rate of clinical response compared with patients who underwent autologous SCT (86 versus 31%). Whether allogeneic MSCT has a superior therapeutic efficacy for CD warrants further study.

When considering HSCT, the question remains whether its risk to benefit ratio justifies it. Observations of case reports published to date suggest that sustained clinical remission with HSCT is initially likely to result from lymph ablation by drugs used in the conditioning regimen; altered immune reconstitution may be a later effect. Temporarily disrupting the immunological memory and ceasing the chronic inflammatory burden using non-ablative HSCT has been shown to be effective in non-controlled study designs [9]. However, the recent ASTIC trial [13] failed to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in sustained disease remission at 1-year of HSCT. According to our study, the pooled rate of clinical remission was 73% (95% CI 36–93) for patients who underwent autologous HSCT, which was higher than 23% (95% CI 7–54) for patients who received ASC. Based on these trial findings, further study of HSCT in patients with refractory CD may be warranted.

When considering fistulizing CD, the existing pharmacological treatments for complex perianal fistulas have low efficacy in inducing fistula healing (antibiotics 21–48%; thiopurines 20–40%; anti-TNFs 23% complete responders) [45]. In our study, the random-effects meta-analysis of all perianal CD studies showed that 57% (95% CI 44–69) of patients had healed fistula after local MSC injection, which is superior to all the above-mentioned treatments. The pooled OR for achieving fistula healing in patients who received SC injection versus control was 3.83 (95% CI 1.06–13.86, P = 0.04).

Whether SCT is associated with improved long-term outcomes for CD patients is unclear. Burt et al. [9] reported that the percentage of clinical relapse-free survival after autologous nonmyeloablative HSCT was 91% at 1 year, 57% at 3 years, and 19% at 5 years. The percentage of patients in remission, steroid-free, or medication-free at any post-transplantation evaluation interval more than 5 years after HSCT remained at or greater than 70, 80, and 60%, respectively. Ciccocioppo et al. [31] reported the efficacy of MSCs for refractory complex CD fistulae declined over time and fistula relapse-free survival was 50% at 2 years and 37% at 4 years. Cho et al. [38] reported that 83.3% (20/24) of patients who received MSCs maintained complete fistula closure at 2 years. In the present meta-analysis, the pooled rate of clinical recurrence was 16% (95% CI 4–34) with a follow-up >12 months. Studies assessing the long-term safety and efficacy of systemic MSC therapy for luminal CD are lacking. Further studies that investigate the impact of periodic MSC administration on long-term outcomes are necessary to establish SCT as maintenance therapy.

The safety of SCT remains a major concern that must be addressed before it can be officially approved for use for CD. During the first 12-month follow-up, viral infections were the most commonly observed complications of autologous HSCT [46]. This is further confirmed by the ASTIC trial [13], with most importantly proven or presumed infections associated with the pancytopenia induced by the conditioning regimen. In contrast, Kniazev et al. [47] revealed no differences in the development of acute post-transfusion reactions, infectious complications, exacerbations of chronic inflammatory diseases, severe infectious complications, malignant transformation, and fatal cases in patients who received MSC therapy during 5-year follow-up. In our analysis, the pooled rate of SAEs and SAEs related to SCT were 12% (95% CI 6–23) and 8% (95% CI 3–18), respectively. When subgrouped by source of SCs, patients who received HSCs had a pooled rate of SAEs of 35% (95% CI 5–86), which is higher than with either BMSC (10%, 95% CI 2–42) or ASC (12%, 95% CI 7–18) infusion. MSCT does not require preparatory regimens involving high-dose chemotherapy and/or radiation; HSCT is thus associated with less procedure-related mortality. Overall, autologous HSCT for patients with refractory CD is feasible, but extraordinary supportive measures need to be implemented.

This meta-analysis also has limitations. First, assessment of the methodological quality determined that there were deficiencies in all the studies evaluated. Although only six RCTs [13, 17, 27, 37, 39, 42] met the inclusion criteria, the majority of studies included are phase I/IIa clinical trials. Second, clinical response exhibited statistical heterogeneity, which likely reflects the variability of definitions for clinical response, study design, sources of SCs, and time to clinical or endoscopic assessment. We used a random effects model to conservatively account for the clinical and statistical heterogeneity in the pooled studies. We also performed subgroup analyses to examine differences in the overall effect estimate.

Conclusions

So far, not enough studies have so far been performed to have a clear view about the use of SCT for CD; up to now the findings are encouraging but not conclusive. SCT seems potentially effective for refractory CD and has high efficacy in inducing fistula healing. Based on subgroup analysis, systemic allogeneic BMSC transfusion had relatively higher rates of inducing clinical response, while autologous ASC local injection had relatively higher rates of inducing fistula closure. Studies are needed to standardize MSC injection in often complex fistulas with multiple tracts to determine optimal dosing and source. Systemic infusion of SCs is not yet ready for the clinic and faces multiple challenges. Toxicity will remain the most significant barrier to HSCT in patients with CD.

Abbreviations

AE: 

adverse event

ASC: 

Adipose mesenchymal stem cell

ASTIC: 

Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation International Crohn Disease

BMSC: 

Bone marrow-derived MSC

CD: 

Crohn’s disease

CDAI: 

Crohn’s Disease Activity Index

CI: 

Confidence interval

HSCT: 

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

MSC: 

Mesenchymal stem cell

NOS: 

Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale

OR: 

Odds ratio

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

SAE: 

Severe adverse event

SC: 

Stem cell

SCT: 

Stem cell therapy

TNF: 

Tumor necrosis factor-α

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This project was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#81270473, #81470821, #81670498, #81630018), the Pearl River S&T Nova Program of Guangzhou (#201610010126), Guangdong Science and Technology (#2014A020212128, #2016A020214006), and the Fundamental Research Funds for Sun Yat-sen University (#15ykpy12).

Availability of data and materials

Availability of data and materials can be assessed both in the Method part and the Results part.

Authors’ contributions

YQ and M-yL: study design, data collection, statistical analysis, interpretation, and manuscript drafting/revision. M-hC and S-hZ: study conception and design and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. RF, TF, B-lC, RM, YH, and Z-rZ: study conception and design and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. All the tables and figures are original for this article.

Consent for publication

All the authors have looked through the manuscript and approved the submission.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University

References

  1. Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ. Crohn’s disease. Lancet. 2012;380:1590–605.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gisbert JP, Panes J. Loss of response and requirement of infliximab dose intensification in Crohn’s disease: a review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:760–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Billioud V, Sandborn WJ, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Loss of response and need for adalimumab dose intensification in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:674–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Duijvestein M, van den Brink GR, Hommes DW. Stem cells as potential novel therapeutic strategy for inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Crohn's and Colitis 2008;2:99–106.Google Scholar
  5. Engelhardt KR, Shah N, Faizura-Yeop I, et al. Clinical outcome in IL-10- and IL-10 receptor-deficient patients with or without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131:825–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lopez-Cubero SO, Sullivan KM, McDonald GB. Course of Crohn’s disease after allogeneic marrow transplantation. Gastroenterology. 1998;114:433–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Muraro PA, Douek DC, Packer A, et al. Thymic output generates a new and diverse TCR repertoire after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis patients. J Exp Med. 2005;201:805–16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Oyama Y, Craig RM, Traynor AE, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with refractory Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:552–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt RK, Craig RM, Milanetti F, et al. Autologous nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with severe anti-TNF refractory Crohn disease: long-term follow-up. Blood. 2010;116:6123–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hasselblatt P, Drognitz K, Potthoff K, et al. Remission of refractory Crohn’s disease by high-dose cyclophosphamide and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36:725–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kreisel W, Potthoff K, Bertz H, et al. Complete remission of Crohn’s disease after high-dose cyclophosphamide and autologous stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;32:337–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkey CJ. Stem cell transplantation for Crohn’s disease. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2004;17:317–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawkey CJ, Allez M, Clark MM, et al. Autologous hematopoetic stem cell transplantation for refractory Crohn disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:2524–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Present DH, Rutgeerts P, Targan S, et al. Infliximab for the treatment of fistulas in patients with Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1398–405.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Sands BE, Anderson FH, Bernstein CN, et al. Infliximab maintenance therapy for fistulizing Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:876–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia-Olmo D, Garcia-Arranz M, Herreros D, et al. A phase I clinical trial of the treatment of Crohn’s fistula by adipose mesenchymal stem cell transplantation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1416–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia-Olmo D, Herreros D, Pascual M, et al. Treatment of enterocutaneous fistula in Crohn’s Disease with adipose-derived stem cells: a comparison of protocols with and without cell expansion. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:27–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman MF, Tukey JW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stat. 1950;21:607–11.Google Scholar
  22. Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1927;22:209–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327:557.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarzer G. Meta: An R package for meta-analysis[J]. R news. 2007;7(3):40–5.Google Scholar
  27. Onken J, Jaffe T, Custer L. W1237 long-term safety of prochymal adult mesenchymal stem cells in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:A-661.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Garcia-Olmo D, Herreros D, Pascual I, et al. Expanded adipose-derived stem cells for the treatment of complex perianal fistula: a phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:79–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Duijvestein M, Vos AC, Roelofs H, et al. Autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell treatment for refractory luminal Crohn’s disease: results of a phase I study. Gut. 2010;59:1662–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazebnik L, Knyazev O, Konoplyannikov A, et al. T1751 Transplantation of allogenic mesenchimal stem cells is a new method of biological therapy of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:S-571.Google Scholar
  31. Ciccocioppo R, Bernardo ME, Sgarella A, et al. Autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in the treatment of fistulising Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2011;60:788–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Park KJ, Oh H-K, Ha H-K, et al. Adipose-derived stem cell treatment for persistent perineal wound in complex Crohn’s perianal abscess/fistula. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:S-76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Cho YB, Lee WY, Park KJ, et al. Autologous adipose tissue-derived stem cells for the treatment of Crohn’s fistula: a phase I clinical study. Cell Transplant. 2013;22:279–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. de la Portilla F, Alba F, Garcia-Olmo D, et al. Expanded allogeneic adipose-derived stem cells (eASCs) for the treatment of complex perianal fistula in Crohn’s disease: results from a multicenter phase I/IIa clinical trial. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28:313–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee WY, Park KJ, Cho YB, et al. Autologous adipose tissue-derived stem cells treatment demonstrated favorable and sustainable therapeutic effect for Crohn’s fistula. Stem Cells. 2013;31:2575–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Forbes GM, Sturm MJ, Leong RW, et al. A phase 2 study of allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells for luminal Crohn’s disease refractory to biologic therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:64–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Park KJ, Kim JS, Kim WH, et al. 507 Allogeneic adipose-derived stem cells for the treatment of Crohn’s perianal fistula: a phase I/IIa clinical study. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:S-1016.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Cho YB, Park KJ, Yoon SN, et al. Long-term results of adipose-derived stem cell therapy for the treatment of Crohn’s fistula. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2015;4:532–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Molendijk I, Bonsing BA, Roelofs H, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells promote healing of refractory perianal fistulas in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:918–27. e6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dhere T, Copland I, Garcia M, et al. 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. 2016;44:471–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lightner AL, Dozois E, Fletcher JG, et al. Early results using an adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells coated fistula plug for the treatment of refractory perianal fistulizing Crohns disease. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:S483–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Panés J, García-Olmo D, Van Assche G, et al. Expanded allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (Cx601) for complex perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:1281–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Cassinotti A, Onida F, Annaloro C, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation without CD34+ cell selection for refractory Crohn’s disease: the milan experience after 5 years. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(Supplement 2):S62–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Dave M, Mehta K, Luther J, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:2696–707.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Gecse KB, Bemelman W, Kamm MA, et al. A global consensus on the classification, diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment of perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2014;63:1381–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jauregui-Amezaga A, Rovira M, Marin P, et al. Improving safety of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2016;65:1456–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kniazev OV, Parfenov AI, KOnopliannikov AG, et al. Safety of mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases: results of a 5-year follow-up. Ter Arkh. 2015;87:39–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement