Abstract
Stem cells represent an exciting biological therapy for the management of many musculoskeletal tissues that suffer degenerative disease and/or where the reparative process results in non-functional tissue (‘failed healing’). The original hypothesis was that implanted cells would differentiate into the target tissue cell type and synthesise new matrix. However, this has been little evidence that this happens in live animals compared to the laboratory, and more recent theories have focussed on the immunomodulatory effects via the release of paracrine factors that can still improve the outcome, especially since inflammation is now considered one of the central processes that drive poor tendon healing. Because of the initial ‘soft’ regulatory environment for the use of stem cells in domestic mammals, bone and fat-derived stem cells quickly established themselves as a useful treatment for naturally occurring musculoskeletal diseases in the horse more than 20 years ago (Smith, Korda et al. 2003). Since the tendinopathy in the horse has many similarities to human tendinopathy, we propose that the following challenges and, the lessons learnt, in this journey are highly relevant to the development of stem cells therapies for human tendinopathy:
-
Source – while MSCs can be recovered from many tissues, the predominant sources for autologous MSCs have been bone and fat. Other sources, including blood, amnion, synovium, and dental pulp have also been commercialised for allogenic treatments.
-
Preparation – ex vivo culture requires transport from a licensed laboratory while ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations can be prepared patient-side. Cells also need a vehicle for transport and implantation.
-
Delivery – transport of cells from the laboratory to the clinic for autologous ex vivo culture techniques; implantation technique (usually by ultrasound-guided injection to minimise damage to the cells (or, more rarely, incorporated into a scaffold). They can also be delivered by regional perfusion via venous or arterial routes.
-
Retention – relatively poor although small numbers of cells do survive for at least 5 months. Immediate loss to the lungs if the cells are administered via vascular routes. Synovially administered cells do not engraft into tendon.
-
Adverse effects – very safe although needle tracts often visible (but do not seen to adversely affect the outcome). Allogenic cells require careful characterisation for MHC Class II antigens to avoid anaphylaxis or reduced efficacy.
-
Appropriate injuries to treat – requires a contained lesion when administered via intra-lesional injection. Intrasynovial tendon lesions are more often associated with surface defects and are therefore less appropriate for treatment. Earlier treatment appears to be more effective than delayed, when implantation by injection is more challenging.
-
Efficacy - beneficial effects shown at both tissue and whole animal (clinical outcome) level in naturally-occurring equine tendinopathy using bone marrow-derived autologous MSCs Recent (licenced) allogenic MSC treatment has shown equivalent efficacy while intra-synovial administration of MSCs is ineffective for open intra-synovial tendon lesions.
-
Regulatory hurdles – these have been lighter for veterinary treatments which has facilitated their development. There has been greater regulation of commercial allogenic MSC preparations which have required EMA marketing authorisation.
