The evidence for vitamin D and other agents that experimentally modulate T regulatory cells (Tregs) for the treatment of patients with autoimmune or allergic diseases has not been established.
We ...have undertaken a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to assess the efficacy of vitamin D, vitamin A, niacin and short-chain fatty acids in enhancing absolute Treg numbers and phenotypes in patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease.
This systematic review was conducted using a predefined protocol (PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, ID = CRD42016048648/ CRD42016048646). Randomised controlled trials of patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease or healthy participants which compared either oral vitamin D or vitamin A or short-chain fatty acids with control or placebo and measured the absolute concentration of proportion of Tregs were eligible for inclusion. Searches of electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PUBMED and Web of Science) identified eight eligible independent trials (seven autoimmune disease trials, one trial of healthy subjects). Data were extracted by two reviewers and the risk of study bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration methodology.
Planned meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneous nature of the studies. Nevertheless, in five trials of autoimmune disorders which measured the proportion of Tregs, a higher proportion was observed in the vitamin D group compared to controls at 12 months in all but one trial. In the trial of healthy subjects, a significant difference was reported, with a higher percentage of Tregs observed in the vitamin D group (at 12 weeks, mean 6.4% (SD 0.8%) (vitamin D) vs 5.5% (1.0%) (placebo). There were no trials to assess the efficacy of vitamin A, niacin and short-chain fatty acids in enhancing absolute Treg numbers.
Vitamin D supplementation may increase Treg/CD3 ratios in both healthy individuals and patients with autoimmune disorders and may increase Treg function. There remains a need for further suitably powered clinical studies aimed at enhancing Treg numbers and/or function.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background
A promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled ...trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.
Objectives
The critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow‐derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.
Selection criteria
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co‐interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random‐effects meta‐analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long‐term follow‐up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.
Main results
We included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty‐three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).
Cell therapy reduced the incidence of long‐term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long‐term reduction in the incidence of non‐fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low‐quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence), or long‐term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference ‐1.60, 95% CI ‐8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low‐quality evidence).
Authors' conclusions
This systematic review and meta‐analysis found low‐quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow‐derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short‐ and long‐term follow‐up and may reduce the incidence of non‐fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.
Cell-based therapies are a promising intervention for the treatment of heart failure (HF) secondary to ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the clinical efficacy of such new treatment ...requires further evaluation.
To assess available clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of cell-based therapies for HF.
Electronic databases (CENTRAL, DARE, NHSEED & HTA, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, KoreaMed, PakMediNet, IndMed, and the Transfusion Evidence Library) were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials to June 2014. Trials of participants with HF and where the administration of any dose of autologous cells by any delivery route was compared with no intervention or placebo were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were defined as mortality and rehospitalization as a result of HF. Secondary outcomes included performance status, quality of life, incidence of arrhythmias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion, and adverse events. Thirty-one independent trials (1521 participants) were included. The treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality and rehospitalization caused by HF. There was a significant improvement in favor of stem cell treatment in performance status and exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and quality of life. The treatment was also associated with a reduction of brain natriuretic peptide levels and no increase in the incidence of arrhythmias. However, there was considerable risk of performance, selection, and reporting bias among the included trials.
This study shows evidence that autologous cell therapy may be beneficial for patients having HF, but further evidence is required.
Background
Cell transplantation offers a potential therapeutic approach to the repair and regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This has ...resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) across the world.
Objectives
To determine the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow stem cells as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), focusing on clinical outcomes.
Search methods
This Cochrane review is an update of a previous version (published in 2012). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1974 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to March 2015). In addition, we searched several international and ongoing trial databases in March 2015 and handsearched relevant conference proceedings to January 2011.
Selection criteria
RCTs comparing autologous bone marrow‐derived cells with no cells in patients diagnosed with AMI were eligible.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened all references, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and extracted data. We conducted meta‐analyses using random‐effects models throughout. We analysed outcomes at short‐term (less than 12 months) and long‐term (12 months or more) follow‐up. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes are reported as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD). We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the results in the context of the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias. Exploratory subgroup analysis investigated the effects of baseline cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF) and cell dose, type and timing of administration, as well as the use of heparin in the final cell solution.
Main results
Forty‐one RCTs with a total of 2732 participants (1564 cell therapy, 1168 controls) were eligible for inclusion. Cell treatment was not associated with any changes in the risk of all‐cause mortality (34/538 versus 32/458; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.50; 996 participants; 14 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (23/277 versus 18/250; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.99; 527 participants; nine studies; moderate quality evidence) or a composite measure of mortality, reinfarction and re‐hospitalisation for heart failure (24/262 versus 33/235; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.10; 497 participants; six studies; moderate quality evidence) at long‐term follow‐up. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0% to 12%). Serious periprocedural adverse events were rare and were generally unlikely to be related to cell therapy. Additionally, cell therapy had no effect on morbidity, quality of life/performance or LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Meta‐analyses of LVEF measured by echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography and left ventricular angiography showed evidence of differences in mean LVEF between treatment groups although the mean differences ranged between 2% and 5%, which are accepted not to be clinically relevant. Results were robust to the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias from individual studies.
Authors' conclusions
The results of this review suggest that there is insufficient evidence for a beneficial effect of cell therapy for AMI patients. However, most of the evidence comes from small trials that showed no difference in clinically relevant outcomes. Further adequately powered trials are needed and until then the efficacy of this intervention remains unproven.
Background
Recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) can develop acute or chronic, or both forms of graft‐versus‐host disease (a/cGvHD), whereby immune cells of the donor ...attack host tissues. Steroids are the primary treatment, but patients with severe, refractory disease have limited options and a poor prognosis. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) exhibit immunosuppressive properties and are being tested in clinical trials for their safety and efficacy in treating many immune‐mediated disorders. GvHD is one of the first areas in which MSCs were clinically applied, and it is important that the accumulating evidence is systematically reviewed to assess whether their use is favoured.
Objectives
To determine the evidence for the safety and efficacy of MSCs for treating immune‐mediated inflammation post‐transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells.
Search methods
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index‐Science (CPCI‐S) (from 1990) and ongoing trial databases to 6 December 2018. No constraints were placed on language or publication status.
Selection criteria
We included RCTs of participants with a haematological condition who have undergone an HSCT as treatment for their condition and were randomised to MSCs (intervention arm) or no MSCs (comparator arm), to prevent or treat GvHD. We also included RCTs which compared different doses of MSCs or MSCs of different sources (e.g. bone marrow versus cord). We included MSCs co‐transplanted with haematopoietic stem cells as well as MSCs administered post‐transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
We employed a random‐effects model for all analyses due to expected clinical heterogeneity arising from differences in participant characteristics and interventions.
Main results
We identified 12 completed RCTs (879 participants), and 13 ongoing trials (1532 enrolled participants planned). Of 12 completed trials, 10 compared MSCs versus no MSCs and two compared different doses of MSCs. One trial was in people with thalassaemia major, the remaining trials were for haematological malignancies. Seven trials administered MSCs to prevent GvHD, whereas five trials gave MSCs to treat GvHD.
In the comparison of MSCs with no MSCs, cells were administered at a dose of between 105 and 107 cells/kg in either a single dose (six trials) or in multiple doses (four trials) over a period of three days to four months. The dose‐comparison trials compared 2 x 106 cells/kg with 8 x 106 cells/kg in two infusions, or 1 x 106 cells/kg with 3 x 106 cells/kg in a single infusion.
The median duration of follow‐up in seven trials which administered MSCs prophylactically ranged from 10 to 60 months. In three trials of MSCs as treatment for aGvHD, participants were followed up for 90 or 100 days. In two trials of MSCs as treatment for cGvHD, the mean duration of follow‐up was 13.4 months (MSC group) and 23.6 months (control group) in one trial, and 56 weeks in the second trial. Five trials included adults only, six trials included adults and children, and one trial included children only. In eight trials which reported the gender distribution, the percentage of females ranged from 20% to 59% (median 35.8%).
The overall quality of the included studies was low: randomisation methods were poorly reported and several of the included studies were subject to a high risk of performance bias and reporting bias. One trial which started in 2008 has not been published and the progress of this trial in unknown, leading to potential publication bias. The quality of evidence was therefore low or very low for all outcomes due to a high risk of bias as well as imprecision due to the low number of overall participants, and in some cases evidence based on a single study. We found that MSCs may make little or no difference in the risk of all‐cause mortality in either prophylactic trials (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.42; participants = 301; studies = 5; I2 = 34% ; low‐quality evidence) or therapeutic trials (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; participants = 244; studies = 1; very low‐quality evidence), and no difference in the risk of relapse of malignant disease (prophylactic trials: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; participants = 323; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence) compared with no MSCs. MSCs were well‐tolerated, no infusion‐related toxicity or ectopic tissue formation was reported. No study reported health‐related quality of life. In prophylactic trials, MSCs may reduce the risk of chronic GvHD (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; participants = 283; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence). This means that only 310 (95% CI 230 to 418) in every 1000 patients in the MSC arm are expected to develop chronic GvHD compared to 469 in the control arm. However, MSCs may make little or no difference to the risk of aGvHD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; participants = 247; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low‐quality evidence). In GvHD therapeutic trials, we are very uncertain whether MSCs improve complete response of either aGvHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70, participants = 260, studies = 1; very low‐quality evidence) or cGvHD (RR 5.00, 95%CI 0.75 to 33.21, participants = 40, studies = 1; very low‐quality evidence).
In two trials which compared different doses of MSCs, we found no evidence of any differences in outcomes.
Authors' conclusions
MSCs are an area of intense research activity, and an increasing number of trials have been undertaken or are planned. Despite a number of reports of positive outcomes from the use of MSCs for treating acute GvHD, the evidence to date from RCTs has not supported the conclusion that they are an effective therapy. There is low‐quality evidence that MSCs may reduce the risk of cGvHD. New trial evidence will be incorporated into future updates of this review, which may better establish a role for MSCs in the prevention or treatment of GvHD.
Translating whole-exome sequencing (WES) for prospective clinical use may have an impact on the care of patients with cancer; however, multiple innovations are necessary for clinical implementation. ...These include rapid and robust WES of DNA derived from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, analytical output similar to data from frozen samples and clinical interpretation of WES data for prospective use. Here, we describe a prospective clinical WES platform for archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples. The platform employs computational methods for effective clinical analysis and interpretation of WES data. When applied retrospectively to 511 exomes, the interpretative framework revealed a 'long tail' of somatic alterations in clinically important genes. Prospective application of this approach identified clinically relevant alterations in 15 out of 16 patients. In one patient, previously undetected findings guided clinical trial enrollment, leading to an objective clinical response. Overall, this methodology may inform the widespread implementation of precision cancer medicine.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To evaluate bone marrow stem cell treatment (BMSC) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and no option of revascularization.
Autologous BMSC therapy has emerged as a novel approach to treat ...patients with acute myocardial infarction or chronic ischemia and heart failure following percutaneous or surgical revascularization, respectively. However, the effect of the treatment has not been systematic evaluated in patients who are not eligible for revascularization.
MEDLINE (1950-2012), EMBASE (1980-2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8) and ongoing trial databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Trials where participants were diagnosed with IHD, with no option for revascularization and who received any dose of stem cells by any delivery route were selected for inclusion. Study and participant characteristics, details of the intervention and comparator, and outcomes measured were recorded by two reviewers independently. Primary outcome measures were defined as mortality and measures of angina; secondary outcomes were heart failure, quality of life measures, exercise/performance and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
Nine trials were eligible for inclusion. BMSC treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality (Relative Risk 0.33; 95% Confidence Interval 0.17 to 0.65; P = 0.001). Patients who received BMSC showed a significantly greater improvement in CCS angina class (Mean Difference -0.55; 95% Confidence Interval -1.00 to -0.10; P = 0.02) and significantly fewer angina episodes per week at the end of the trial (Mean Difference -5.21; 95% Confidence Interval -7.35 to -3.07; P<0.00001) than those who received no BMSC. In addition, the treatment significantly improved quality of life, exercise/performance and LVEF in these patients.
BMSC treatment has significant clinical benefit as stand-alone treatment in patients with IHD and no other treatment option. These results require confirmation in large well-powered trials with long-term follow-up to fully evaluate the clinical efficacy of this treatment.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
A promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) ...developed worldwide which have generated conflicting results.
The critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and heart failure.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), together with ongoing trial databases, for relevant trials up to 31st March 2013.
Eligible studies included RCTs comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no autologous stem/progenitor cells in participants with chronic IHD and heart failure. Co-interventions such as primary angioplasty, surgery or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, were included where administered to treatment and control arms equally.
Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using fixed-effect meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I² statistic; we explored considerable heterogeneity (I² > 75%) using a random-effects model and subgroup analyses.
We include 23 RCTs involving 1255 participants in this review. Risk of bias was generally low, with the majority of studies reporting appropriate methods of randomisation and blinding, Autologous bone marrow stem cell treatment reduced the incidence of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.53, P = 0.0001, 8 studies, 494 participants, low quality evidence) and rehospitalisation due to heart failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.94, P = 0.04, 2 studies, 198 participants, low quality evidence) in the long term (≥12 months). The treatment had no clear effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.41, P = 0.30, 21 studies, 1138 participants, low quality evidence) or rehospitalisation due to heart failure (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.06, P = 0.06, 4 studies, 236 participants, low quality evidence) in the short term (< 12 months), which is compatible with benefit, no difference or harm. The treatment was also associated with a reduction in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) (mean difference (MD) -14.64 ml, 95% CI -20.88 ml to -8.39 ml, P < 0.00001, 3 studies, 153 participants, moderate quality evidence) and stroke volume index (MD 6.52, 95% CI 1.51 to 11.54, P = 0.01, 2 studies, 62 participants, moderate quality evidence), and an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD 2.62%, 95% CI 0.50% to 4.73%, P = 0.02, 6 studies, 254 participants, moderate quality evidence), all at long-term follow-up. Overall, we observed a reduction in functional class (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class) in favour of BMSC treatment during short-term follow-up (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.19, P = 0.005, 11 studies, 486 participants, moderate quality evidence) and long-term follow-up (MD -0.91, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44, P = 0.0002, 4 studies, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence), as well as a difference in Canadian Cardiovascular Society score in favour of BMSC (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.07, P = 0.03, 8 studies, 379 participants, moderate quality evidence). Of 19 trials in which adverse events were reported, adverse events relating to the BMSC treatment or procedure occurred in only four individuals. No long-term adverse events were reported. Subgroup analyses conducted for outcomes such as LVEF and NYHA class revealed that (i) route of administration, (ii) baseline LVEF, (iii) cell type, and (iv) clinical condition are important factors that may influence treatment effect.
This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate quality evidence that BMSC treatment improves LVEF. Unlike in trials where BMSC were administered following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), we found some evidence for a potential beneficial clinical effect in terms of mortality and performance status in the long term (after at least one year) in people who suffer from chronic IHD and heart failure, although the quality of evidence was low.
Stem cell therapy offers a promising approach to the regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled ...trials (RCTs) worldwide.
To critically evaluate evidence from RCTs on the effectiveness of adult bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) to treat acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
This Cochrane review is an update of a previous one (published in 2008). MEDLINE (1950 to January 2011), EMBASE (1974 to January 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 1, 2011), CINAHL (1982 to January 2011) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to January 2011) were searched. In addition, several international and ongoing trial databases were searched and handsearching of relevant conference proceedings undertaken to January 2011.
RCTs comparing autologous stem/progenitor cells with no autologous stem/progenitor cells in patients diagnosed with AMI were eligible.
Two authors independently screened all references, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were conducted and heterogeneity was explored for the primary outcome using sub-group analyses.
Thirty-three RCTs (1765 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Stem/progenitor cell treatment was not associated with statistically significant changes in the incidence of mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.21) or morbidity (the latter measured by re-infarction, hospital re-admission, restenosis and target vessel revascularisation). A considerably high degree of heterogeneity has been observed among the included trials. In short-term follow up, stem cell treatment was observed to improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly (WMD 2.87, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.73). This improvement in LVEF was maintained over long-term follow up of 12 to 61 months (WMD 3.75, 95% CI 2.57 to 4.93). With certain measurements and at certain times, stem cell treatment was observed to reduce left ventricular end systolic and end diastolic volumes (LVESV & LVEDV) and infarct size significantly in long-term follow up. There was a positive correlation between mononuclear cell dose infused and the effect on LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging. A correlation between timing of stem cell treatment and effect on LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography was also observed.
Despite the high degree of heterogeneity observed, the results of this systematic review suggest that moderate improvement in global heart function is significant and sustained long-term. However, because mortality rates after successful revascularization of the culprit arteries are very low, larger number of participants would be required to assess the full clinical effect of this treatment. Standardisation of methodology, cell dosing and cell product formulation, timing of cell transplantation and patient selection may also be required in order to reduce the substantial heterogeneity observed among the included studies.
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a multifactorial disease and a prevalent cause of visual impairment in developed countries. Risk factors include environmental components and genetic ...determinants. The complement factor H (CFH) has been the first major susceptibility gene for AMD identified within 1q32. Here, we focused on a second region of interest in 10q26 where a recent meta-analysis revealed strongest evidence for linkage to AMD at a genome-wide significance level. Within an interval of 22 Mb, we have analyzed 93 single nucleotide polymorphisms for allelic association with AMD in two independent case–control cohorts of German origin (AMDcombined n=1166; controlscombined n=945). Significant association was found across a 60 kb region of high linkage disequilibrium harboring two genes PLEKHA1 and hypothetical LOC387715. The strongest association (P=10−34) centered over a frequent coding polymorphism, Ala69Ser, at LOC387715, strongly implicating this gene in the pathogenesis of AMD. Besides abundant expression in placenta, we demonstrate weak expression of LOC387715 in the human retina. At present, however, there is no functional information on this gene, which appears to have evolved recently within the primate lineage. The joint contribution of the common risk allele at LOC387715, Ala69Ser, and at CFH, Tyr402His, was assessed in our case–control population, which suggests an additive model indicating an independent contribution of the two gene loci to disease risk. Our data show a disease odds ratio of 57.6 (95% CI: 37.2, 89.0) conferred by homozygosity for risk alleles at both CFH and LOC387715 when compared with the baseline non-risk genotype.
PDF
