CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Liver Disease and TransplantationMesenchymal stem cell researchLiver physiology and pathology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Autologous Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cell Transplantation in Patients with Decompensated Alcoholic Liver Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Spahr, Laurent, Chalandon, Yves, Terraz, Sylvain, Kindler, Vincent, Rubbia-Brandt, Laura, Frossard, Jean-Louis, Breguet, Romain, Lanthier, Nicolas, Farina, Annarita, Passweg, Jakob, Becker, Christoph D., Hadengue, Antoine·2013·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0053719PMC PMC3544843
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Impaired liver regeneration is associated with a poor outcome in patients with decompensated alcoholic liver disease (ALD). We assessed whether autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation (BMMCT) improved liver function in decompensated ALD. DESIGN: 58 patients (mean age 54 yrs; mean MELD score 19, all with cirrhosis, 81% with alcoholic steatohepatitis at baseline liver biopsy) were randomized early after hospital admission to standard medical therapy (SMT) alone (n = 30), including steroids in patients with a Maddrey's score ≥32, or combined with G-CSF injections and autologous BMMCT into the hepatic artery (n = 28). Bone marrow cells were harvested, isolated and reinfused the same day. The primary endpoint was a ≥3 points decrease in the MELD score at 3 months, corresponding to a clinically relevant improvement in liver function. Liver biopsy was repeated at week 4 to assess changes in Ki67+/CK7+ hepatic progenitor cells (HPC) compartment. RESULTS: Both study groups were comparable at baseline. After 3 months, 2 and 4 patients died in the BMMCT and SMT groups, respectively. Adverse events were equally distributed between groups. Moderate alcohol relapse occurred in 31% of patients. The MELD score improved in parallel in both groups during follow-up with 18 patients (64%) from the BMMCT group and 18 patients (53%) from the SMT group reaching the primary endpoint (p = 0.43 (OR 1.6, CI 0.49-5.4) in an intention to treat analysis. Comparing liver biopsy at 4 weeks to baseline, steatosis improved (p<0.001), and proliferating HPC tended to decrease in both groups (-35 and -33%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Autologous BMMCT, compared to SMT is a safe procedure but did not result in an expanded HPC compartment or improved liver function. These data suggest either insufficient regenerative stimulation after BMMCT or resistance to liver regenerative drive in patients with decompensated alcoholic cirrhosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN83972743.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0053719

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flowchart of patients’ selection according to CONSORT guidelines and design of the study.
Figure 1 Flowchart of patients’ selection according to CONSORT guidelines and design of the study.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of the changes in MELD score during the 3-month follow-up period. The values of the BMMCT and SMT groups appear in grey and white, respectively. * p<0.05 versus baseline value.
Figure 2 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of the changes in MELD score during the 3-month follow-up period. The values of the BMMCT and SMT groups appear in grey and white, respectively. * p<0.05 versus baseline value.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Percent of patients in each group who reached the primary endpoint at 3 months (p = 0.43).
Figure 3 Percent of patients in each group who reached the primary endpoint at 3 months (p = 0.43).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of AFP serum values in BMMCT (grey boxes) and SMT groups (white boxes) at baseline and at 3 months. * p<0.01 versus baseline.
Figure 4 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of AFP serum values in BMMCT (grey boxes) and SMT groups (white boxes) at baseline and at 3 months. * p<0.01 versus baseline.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of HGF serum values in BMMCT (grey boxes) and SMT groups (white boxes) at baseline and at 3 months. * p<0.01 versus baseline.
Figure 5 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of HGF serum values in BMMCT (grey boxes) and SMT groups (white boxes) at baseline and at 3 months. * p<0.01 versus baseline.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of TGFβ serum values in BMMCT (grey boxes) and SMT groups (white boxes) at baseline and at 3 months. * p<0.01 versus baseline.
Figure 6 Box-plot (median value, lower and upper quartile) representation of TGFβ serum values in BMMCT (grey boxes) and SMT groups (white boxes) at baseline and at 3 months. * p<0.01 versus baseline.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Spahr, L., Chalandon, Y., Terraz, S., Kindler, V., Rubbia-Brandt, L., Frossard, J.-L., Breguet, R., Lanthier, N., Farina, A., Passweg, J., Becker, C. D., & Hadengue, A.
Affiliations
University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Spahr, Laurent
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-01-14
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e53719
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0053719
PMC
PMC3544843
OpenAlex
W1985534351
Cited by
118
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7
FWCI
8.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
  • Louis-Jeantet Foundation
  • Faculté de Médecine, Université de Genève
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease and Transplantation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Mesenchymal stem cell research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
Keywords
autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation, alcoholic cirrhosis, alcoholic steatohepatitis, liver regeneration, hepatic progenitor cells, MELD score, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, liver function, alcohol relapse
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Hepatic Artery, Humans, Liver, Liver Diseases, Alcoholic, Male, Middle Aged, Regeneration, Time Factors, Transplantation, Autologous, Biomarkers, Bone Marrow Transplantation, Cytokines, Recovery of Function, Hepatocytes, Stem Cell Transplantation, Cell Proliferation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review