Repeated Cell Therapy: A Paradigm Shift Whose Time Has Come

Roberto Bolli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although treatment with stem/progenitor cells is a promising approach to heart disease, enthusiasm for cell therapy has been dampened by the inconsistent, modest, borderline, or undetectable benefits reported in clinical trials (all of which have used one dose of cells). As a result, clinical translation has not occurred (no cell-based therapy is close to being approved for heart disease), and a rising tide of skepticism has bedeviled the field, leading some critics even to question whether clinical studies should continue. Here I propose that a major reason for the modest, borderline, or disappointing results is the administration of only one dose of cells, which causes the benefits of cell therapy to be underestimated. I argue that just as most pharmacologic agents are ineffective when given once but can be highly effective when given repeatedly, so a cell product may be ineffective, or modestly effective, when given as a single treatment, but may turn out to be quite efficacious if given repeatedly. This concept constitutes a major paradigm shift, with potentially vast implications for the entire field of reparative medicine.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCirculation Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Feb 10 2017

Fingerprint

Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
Heart Diseases
Stem Cells
Medicine
Clinical Trials
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Repeated Cell Therapy : A Paradigm Shift Whose Time Has Come. / Bolli, Roberto.

In: Circulation Research, 10.02.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{024a5ac67a28418b8d70bc9271db7fcd,
title = "Repeated Cell Therapy: A Paradigm Shift Whose Time Has Come",
abstract = "Although treatment with stem/progenitor cells is a promising approach to heart disease, enthusiasm for cell therapy has been dampened by the inconsistent, modest, borderline, or undetectable benefits reported in clinical trials (all of which have used one dose of cells). As a result, clinical translation has not occurred (no cell-based therapy is close to being approved for heart disease), and a rising tide of skepticism has bedeviled the field, leading some critics even to question whether clinical studies should continue. Here I propose that a major reason for the modest, borderline, or disappointing results is the administration of only one dose of cells, which causes the benefits of cell therapy to be underestimated. I argue that just as most pharmacologic agents are ineffective when given once but can be highly effective when given repeatedly, so a cell product may be ineffective, or modestly effective, when given as a single treatment, but may turn out to be quite efficacious if given repeatedly. This concept constitutes a major paradigm shift, with potentially vast implications for the entire field of reparative medicine.",
author = "Roberto Bolli",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310710",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Circulation Research",
issn = "0009-7330",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repeated Cell Therapy

T2 - A Paradigm Shift Whose Time Has Come

AU - Bolli, Roberto

PY - 2017/2/10

Y1 - 2017/2/10

N2 - Although treatment with stem/progenitor cells is a promising approach to heart disease, enthusiasm for cell therapy has been dampened by the inconsistent, modest, borderline, or undetectable benefits reported in clinical trials (all of which have used one dose of cells). As a result, clinical translation has not occurred (no cell-based therapy is close to being approved for heart disease), and a rising tide of skepticism has bedeviled the field, leading some critics even to question whether clinical studies should continue. Here I propose that a major reason for the modest, borderline, or disappointing results is the administration of only one dose of cells, which causes the benefits of cell therapy to be underestimated. I argue that just as most pharmacologic agents are ineffective when given once but can be highly effective when given repeatedly, so a cell product may be ineffective, or modestly effective, when given as a single treatment, but may turn out to be quite efficacious if given repeatedly. This concept constitutes a major paradigm shift, with potentially vast implications for the entire field of reparative medicine.

AB - Although treatment with stem/progenitor cells is a promising approach to heart disease, enthusiasm for cell therapy has been dampened by the inconsistent, modest, borderline, or undetectable benefits reported in clinical trials (all of which have used one dose of cells). As a result, clinical translation has not occurred (no cell-based therapy is close to being approved for heart disease), and a rising tide of skepticism has bedeviled the field, leading some critics even to question whether clinical studies should continue. Here I propose that a major reason for the modest, borderline, or disappointing results is the administration of only one dose of cells, which causes the benefits of cell therapy to be underestimated. I argue that just as most pharmacologic agents are ineffective when given once but can be highly effective when given repeatedly, so a cell product may be ineffective, or modestly effective, when given as a single treatment, but may turn out to be quite efficacious if given repeatedly. This concept constitutes a major paradigm shift, with potentially vast implications for the entire field of reparative medicine.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012918106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012918106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310710

DO - 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310710

M3 - Article

C2 - 28179431

AN - SCOPUS:85012918106

JO - Circulation Research

JF - Circulation Research

SN - 0009-7330

ER -