| Title |
Concise Review: Review and Perspective of Cell Dosage and Routes of Administration From Preclinical and Clinical Studies of Stem Cell Therapy for Heart Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cells Translational Medicine, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.5966/sctm.2015-0101 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel Golpanian, Ivonne H. Schulman, Ray F. Ebert, Alan W. Heldman, Darcy L. DiFede, Phillip C. Yang, Joseph C. Wu, Roberto Bolli, Emerson C. Perin, Lem Moyé, Robert D. Simari, Ariel Wolf, Joshua M. Hare, Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network |
| Abstract |
: An important stage in the development of any new therapeutic agent is establishment of the optimal dosage and route of administration. This can be particularly challenging when the treatment is a biologic agent that might exert its therapeutic effects via complex or poorly understood mechanisms. Multiple preclinical and clinical studies have shown paradoxical results, with inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between the cell dose and clinical benefit. Such phenomena can, at least in part, be attributed to variations in cell dosing or concentration and the route of administration (ROA). Although clinical trials of cell-based therapy for cardiovascular disease began more than a decade ago, specification of the optimal dosage and ROA has not been established. The present review summarizes what has been learned regarding the optimal cell dosage and ROA from preclinical and clinical studies of stem cell therapy for heart disease and offers a perspective on future directions. Preclinical and clinical studies on cell-based therapy for cardiovascular disease have shown inconsistent results, in part because of variations in study-specific dosages and/or routes of administration (ROA). Future preclinical studies and smaller clinical trials implementing cell-dose and ROA comparisons are warranted before proceeding to pivotal trials. |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 67% |
| Thailand | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 111 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 44 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 48 | 42% |