The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Abstract Background Recent randomized controlled trials have consistently demonstrated the safety and potential efficacy of MSC therapy for heart failure patients. This study delves into mesenchymal stem cells’ promising potential, offering a beacon of hope for the future of heart failure treatment...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Omar T. F. Ahmed, Ziyad Tarek Ahmed, Abdulrahman W. Dairi, Maha Saad Zain Al-Abeden, Mohammed H. Alkahlot, Rana H. Alkahlot, Ghazi I. Al Jowf, Lars M. T. Eijssen, Khawaja Husnain Haider
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-04-01
Series:Stem Cell Research & Therapy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-025-04209-5
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849726139472281600
author Omar T. F. Ahmed
Ziyad Tarek Ahmed
Abdulrahman W. Dairi
Maha Saad Zain Al-Abeden
Mohammed H. Alkahlot
Rana H. Alkahlot
Ghazi I. Al Jowf
Lars M. T. Eijssen
Khawaja Husnain Haider
author_facet Omar T. F. Ahmed
Ziyad Tarek Ahmed
Abdulrahman W. Dairi
Maha Saad Zain Al-Abeden
Mohammed H. Alkahlot
Rana H. Alkahlot
Ghazi I. Al Jowf
Lars M. T. Eijssen
Khawaja Husnain Haider
author_sort Omar T. F. Ahmed
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Recent randomized controlled trials have consistently demonstrated the safety and potential efficacy of MSC therapy for heart failure patients. This study delves into mesenchymal stem cells’ promising potential, offering a beacon of hope for the future of heart failure treatment with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched four databases and registers for RCTs, including PubMed, EBSCO, clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and other relevant websites. We then selected thirteen RCTs with 1184 participants based on our pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent assessors extracted the data and performed a quality assessment. The data were then plotted for various outcomes, including death, hospitalization, major adverse cardiac events, pump function parameters, and 6-min walk distance. Results The safety of MSC-based treatment has been consistently demonstrated with MSCs from autologous (AutoMSCs) and allogeneic (AlloMSCs) sources. This reassuring finding underscores the reliability of MSC-based therapy irrespective of their source. However, AutoMSCs showed a trend toward greater protective benefits. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between AutoMSCs and AlloMSCs in improving LVEF; 0.86% (95% CI − 1.21–2.94%) for AlloMSCs versus 2.17% (− 0.48%; 95% CI − 1.33–5.67%) for AutoMSCs. AlloMSCs significantly reduced end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) by − 2.08 mL (95% CI − 3.52—0.64 mL). Only AlloMSCs significantly improved 6-min walking distance (6-MWD); 31.88 m (95% CI 5.03–58.74 m) for AlloMSCs versus 31.71 m (95% CI − 8.91–71.25 m) for AutoMSCs. The exclusion of studies using adipose-derived cells resulted in even better safety and a significant improvement in LVEF for AlloMSCs treatment. Conclusion Our findings suggest that AlloMSCs are at par with AutoMSCs in improving functional outcomes in heart failure patients. This underscores the need for future investigations in a larger patient cohort, emphasizing the urgency and importance of further research to fully understand the potential of MSCs in treating heart failure.
format Article
id doaj-art-ffc218c4af3c4df2b7eca54ada28aea2
institution DOAJ
issn 1757-6512
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Stem Cell Research & Therapy
spelling doaj-art-ffc218c4af3c4df2b7eca54ada28aea22025-08-20T03:10:17ZengBMCStem Cell Research & Therapy1757-65122025-04-0116111610.1186/s13287-025-04209-5The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTsOmar T. F. Ahmed0Ziyad Tarek Ahmed1Abdulrahman W. Dairi2Maha Saad Zain Al-Abeden3Mohammed H. Alkahlot4Rana H. Alkahlot5Ghazi I. Al Jowf6Lars M. T. Eijssen7Khawaja Husnain Haider8College of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityCollege of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityCollege of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityCollege of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityCollege of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityCollege of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityDepartment of Public Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Faisal UniversityDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University Medical CentreCollege of Medicine, Sulaiman Alrajhi UniversityAbstract Background Recent randomized controlled trials have consistently demonstrated the safety and potential efficacy of MSC therapy for heart failure patients. This study delves into mesenchymal stem cells’ promising potential, offering a beacon of hope for the future of heart failure treatment with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched four databases and registers for RCTs, including PubMed, EBSCO, clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and other relevant websites. We then selected thirteen RCTs with 1184 participants based on our pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent assessors extracted the data and performed a quality assessment. The data were then plotted for various outcomes, including death, hospitalization, major adverse cardiac events, pump function parameters, and 6-min walk distance. Results The safety of MSC-based treatment has been consistently demonstrated with MSCs from autologous (AutoMSCs) and allogeneic (AlloMSCs) sources. This reassuring finding underscores the reliability of MSC-based therapy irrespective of their source. However, AutoMSCs showed a trend toward greater protective benefits. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between AutoMSCs and AlloMSCs in improving LVEF; 0.86% (95% CI − 1.21–2.94%) for AlloMSCs versus 2.17% (− 0.48%; 95% CI − 1.33–5.67%) for AutoMSCs. AlloMSCs significantly reduced end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) by − 2.08 mL (95% CI − 3.52—0.64 mL). Only AlloMSCs significantly improved 6-min walking distance (6-MWD); 31.88 m (95% CI 5.03–58.74 m) for AlloMSCs versus 31.71 m (95% CI − 8.91–71.25 m) for AutoMSCs. The exclusion of studies using adipose-derived cells resulted in even better safety and a significant improvement in LVEF for AlloMSCs treatment. Conclusion Our findings suggest that AlloMSCs are at par with AutoMSCs in improving functional outcomes in heart failure patients. This underscores the need for future investigations in a larger patient cohort, emphasizing the urgency and importance of further research to fully understand the potential of MSCs in treating heart failure.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-025-04209-5AutologousAllogeneicHeart failureHFrEFMesenchymal stem cellsMesenchymal precursor cells
spellingShingle Omar T. F. Ahmed
Ziyad Tarek Ahmed
Abdulrahman W. Dairi
Maha Saad Zain Al-Abeden
Mohammed H. Alkahlot
Rana H. Alkahlot
Ghazi I. Al Jowf
Lars M. T. Eijssen
Khawaja Husnain Haider
The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Stem Cell Research & Therapy
Autologous
Allogeneic
Heart failure
HFrEF
Mesenchymal stem cells
Mesenchymal precursor cells
title The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
title_full The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
title_fullStr The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
title_full_unstemmed The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
title_short The inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous MSCs in treating patients with HFrEF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
title_sort inconclusive superiority debate of allogeneic versus autologous mscs in treating patients with hfref a systematic review and meta analysis of rcts
topic Autologous
Allogeneic
Heart failure
HFrEF
Mesenchymal stem cells
Mesenchymal precursor cells
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-025-04209-5
work_keys_str_mv AT omartfahmed theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT ziyadtarekahmed theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT abdulrahmanwdairi theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT mahasaadzainalabeden theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT mohammedhalkahlot theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT ranahalkahlot theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT ghaziialjowf theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT larsmteijssen theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT khawajahusnainhaider theinconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT omartfahmed inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT ziyadtarekahmed inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT abdulrahmanwdairi inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT mahasaadzainalabeden inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT mohammedhalkahlot inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT ranahalkahlot inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT ghaziialjowf inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT larsmteijssen inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts
AT khawajahusnainhaider inconclusivesuperioritydebateofallogeneicversusautologousmscsintreatingpatientswithhfrefasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrcts