AUTHOR=Shang Zhizhong , Jiang Yanbiao , Guan Xin , Wang Anan , Ma Bin
TITLE=Therapeutic Effects of Stem Cells From Different Source on Renal Ischemia- Reperfusion Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Animal Studies
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Pharmacology
VOLUME=12
YEAR=2021
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.713059
DOI=10.3389/fphar.2021.713059
ISSN=1663-9812
ABSTRACT=Objective: Although stem cell therapy for renal ischemia-reperfusion injury (RIRI) has made immense progress in animal studies, conflicting results have been reported by the investigators. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of different stem cells on renal function of animals with ischemia-reperfusion injury and to compare the efficacies of stem cells from various sources.
Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and WanFang Data were searched for records until April 2021. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and literature quality evaluation.
Results and conclusion: Seventy-two animal studies were included for data analysis. Different stem cells significantly reduced serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels in the early and middle stages (1 and 7 days) compared to the negative control group, however there was no significant difference in the late stage among all groups (14 days); In the early stage (1 day), the renal histopathological score in the stem cell group was significantly lower than that in the negative control group, and there was no significant difference among these stem cells. In addition, there was no significant difference between stem cell and negative control in proliferation of resident cells, however, significantly less apoptosis of resident cells than negative control. In conclusion, the results showed that stem cells from diverse sources could improve the renal function of RIRI animals. ADMSCs and MDMSCs were the most-researched stem cells, and they possibly hold the highest therapeutic potential. However, the quality of evidence included in this study is low, and there are many risks of bias. The exact efficacy of the stem cells and the requirement for further clinical studies remain unclear.