ABSTRACT
Background: Regenerative medicine interventions are applied to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous/allogenic biologics and it continues to expand. The anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and regenerative properties of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), and investigation into their therapeutic efficacy and safety in patients with severe chronic low back pain, have not been demonstrated in controlled studies. Multiple pain generators have been hypothesized to be responsible in severe spinal degeneration and it is difficult to identify a single pain generator;consequently, resulting in inadequate therapeutic results. Objectives: The study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of autologous bone marrow MSCs in the treatment of chronic low back pain due to severe lumbar spinal degeneration with involvement of multiple structures. Study Design: Prospective, open-label, nonrandomized, parallel-controlled, 2-arm exploratory study. Setting: A private, specialized, interventional pain management and regenerative medicine clinic. Methods: The treatment group patients received a one-time bone marrow concentrate injection into spinal structures (i.e., discs, facets, spinal nerves, and sacroiliac joints), along with conventional treatment, whereas, the control group received conventional treatment with nonsteroid antiinflammatory drugs, over-the-counter drugs, structured exercise programs, physical therapy, spinal injections and opioids, etc., as indicated. Outcomes Assessment: Outcomes were assessed utilizing multiple instruments, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), EuroQOL 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), Global Mental Health (GMH), and Global Physical Health (GPH). Multiple outcomes were assessed with primary outcomes being minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in ODI scores between the groups and/or a 2-point reduction in pain scores. In the study group, total nucleated cells, colony forming units-fibroblast, CD34-positive cell numbers and platelets were also recorded, along with post-procedure magnetic resonance imaging changes. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Significant improvement was achieved in functional status measured by ODI, pain relief measured by NRS-11, and other parameters measured by EQ-5D-3L, GMH, and GPH, in the study group relative to the control group at all time periods. The results showed significant improvements at 12-month follow-up with 67% of the patients in the study group achieving MCID utilizing ODI when compared to 8% in the control group. Greater than 2-point pain reduction was seen in 74% of the patients at 3 months, 66% of the patients at 6 months, and 56% of the patients at 12 months. Both MCID and pain relief of 2 points were significantly different compared to the control group. Opioid use decreased in the investigational group, whereas, there was a slight increase in the control group. Age, gender, opioid use, and body mass index did not affect the outcomes in the stem cell group. Limitations: Single center, nonrandomized study. Conclusions: The first available controlled study utilizing BM-MSCs in severe degenerative spinal disease with interventions into multiple structures simultaneously, including disc, facet joints, nerve roots, and sacroiliac joint based on symptomatology, showed promising results.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: During the Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Health Care Workers (HCWs) have experienced an unexpected increase in workload which leads to feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, and isolation. Furthermore, they are more vulnerable to contract the infection and transmit it to their family and colleagues. Aim: To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on doctors life in term of personal and professional changes. Materials and Methods: The present observational, cross-sectional study was conducted on doctors in various institutes of Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. The study comprised an online questionnaire survey which consisted of three parts;the first part constituted demographic data, the second one constituted questions on the personal life status and changes, and the third part constituted questions regarding the professional life and some miscellaneous questions gauging the doctor's knowledge of the current scenario. The collected data were entered in a Microsoft excel sheet, and the results were calculated. Results: Most of the participants were between 25-34 years (47.8%) and male (71%). A majority of the doctors had a family with children (44.2%) and a spouse who was a HCW too (59.8%). A majority of the practitioners worked with patients with coronavirus (52.3%) and thus felt worried about their family members (93.3%). Although most participants knew about telemedicine (89.3%), most of the practitioners did not practice it (76.8%). Conclusion: Although HCWs do not face harassment, they suffer anxiety regarding contracting COVID-19 themselves and transmitting it to their family members.
ABSTRACT
Background: Although only a small percentage of patients with COVID-19 deteriorate to a critical condition, because of the associated high mortality rate and the sheer number of cases, it imposes a tremendous burden on the society and unprecedented strains the health care resources. Albeit lung is the primary organ involved resulting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), many patients additionally present with secondary multiorgan failure. Unfortunately, there is no definitive or curative treatment for this condition, and the management has been predominantly confined to supportive care, which necessitates an urgent need for novel therapies. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has a vast array of preclinical data and early, preliminary clinical data that suggests its potential to regenerate and restore the function of damaged tissues and organs. To date, there has been no review of all the clinical trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in organ failure commonly seen in seriously complicated COVID-19 patients. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure, utilizing currently available literature. Study Design: A review of human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the role of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1990 through May 2020. Studies that included embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, differentiated MSCs into specific lineage cells, and hematopoietic stem cells were excluded. Trials with intraorgan infiltration of MSC were also excluded. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome evaluated the improvement in clinical assessment scores and indices of organ function. The secondary outcome assessed the safety of MSC therapy in the clinical trials. Results: Based on search criteria, 12 studies were found for lung, 52 for heart, 23 for liver, 16 for stroke, and 9 for kidney. Among the 6 studies that specifically assessed the effectiveness of MSC therapy in ARDS, 4 showed positive outcomes. Forty-one of the 52 trials that examined ischemic and nonischemic heart failure reported beneficial effects. Twenty of 23 trials for liver failure from different etiologies revealed favorable outcomes. Nine out of the 15 studies evaluating stroke had satisfactory effects. However, only 3 out of the 9 studies for kidney failure showed positive results. Nonexpanded bone marrow mononuclear cells were used in most of the negative studies. The incidence of disease worsening or major complications was extremely rare from MSC therapy. Limitations: Among the studies evaluated, although there were many RCTs, there were also numerous case series. Additionally, most recruited a small number of patients. Conclusions: MSC therapy seems to be promising to treat multiorgan failure from COVID-19. More studies are urgently needed to assess both safety and efficacy.