Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Safety profile of autologous macrophage therapy for liver cirrhosis

Nature Medicine volume 25, pages 1560–1565 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Therapies to reduce liver fibrosis and stimulate organ regeneration are urgently needed. We conducted a first-in-human, phase 1 dose-escalation trial of autologous macrophage therapy in nine adults with cirrhosis and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 10–16 (ISRCTN 10368050). Groups of three participants received a single peripheral infusion of 107, 108 or up to 109 cells. Leukapheresis and macrophage infusion were well tolerated with no transfusion reactions, dose-limiting toxicities or macrophage activation syndrome. All participants were alive and transplant-free at one year, with only one clinical event recorded, the occurrence of minimal ascites. The primary outcomes of safety and feasibility were met. This study informs and provides a rationale for efficacy studies in cirrhosis and other fibrotic diseases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Trial profile.
Fig. 2: MELD score over time per cell dose group.
Fig. 3: Secondary outcomes.

Data availability

Data in the published article (and its Supplementary Information files) has been presented where possible in aggregated form. Any data presented to illustrate individual patient performance has been de-identified and only includes analysis of performance within the trial (such as MELD score). The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author (S.J.F.) upon reasonable request, although restrictions may apply due to patient privacy and the General Data Protection Regulation.

References

  1. Asrani, S. K., Devarbhavi, H., Eaton, J. & Kamath, P. S. Burden of liver diseases in the world. J. Hepatol. 70, 151–171 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Amico, G., Garcia-Tsao, G. & Pagliaro, L. Natural history and prognostic indicators of survival in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studies. J. Hepatol. 44, 217–231 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Forbes, S. J., Gupta, S. & Dhawan, A. Cell therapy for liver disease: from liver transplantation to cell factory. J. Hepatol. 62, S157–S169 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schuppan, D. & Kim, Y. O. Evolving therapies for liver fibrosis. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 1887–1901 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Duffield, J. S. et al. Selective depletion of macrophages reveals distinct, opposing roles during liver injury and repair. J. Clin. Invest. 115, 56–65 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gouw, A. S., Clouston, A. D. & Theise, N. D. Ductular reactions in human liver: diversity at the interface. Hepatology 54, 1853–1863 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boulter, L. et al. Macrophage-derived Wnt opposes Notch signaling to specify hepatic progenitor cell fate in chronic liver disease. Nat. Med 18, 572–579 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramachandran, P. et al. Differential Ly-6C expression identifies the recruited macrophage phenotype, which orchestrates the regression of murine liver fibrosis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E3186–E3195 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fallowfield, J. A. et al. Scar-associated macrophages are a major source of hepatic matrix metalloproteinase-13 and facilitate the resolution of murine hepatic fibrosis. J. Immunol. 178, 5288–5295 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bird, T. G. et al. Bone marrow injection stimulates hepatic ductular reactions in the absence of injury via macrophage-mediated TWEAK signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6542–6547 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fraser, A. R. et al. Development, functional characterization and validation of methodology for GMP-compliant manufacture of phagocytic macrophages: a novel cellular therapeutic for liver cirrhosis. Cytotherapy 19, 1113–1124 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moore, J. K. et al. Phenotypic and functional characterization of macrophages with therapeutic potential generated from human cirrhotic monocytes in a cohort study. Cytotherapy 17, 1604–1616 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Foucher, J. et al. Diagnosis of cirrhosis by transient elastography (FibroScan): a prospective study. Gut 55, 403–408 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hutchinson, J. A. et al. Cutting Edge: immunological consequences and trafficking of human regulatory macrophages administered to renal transplant recipients. J. Immunol. 187, 2072–2078 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharkey, J. et al. Functionalized superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles provide highly efficient iron-labeling in macrophages for magnetic resonance-based detection in vivo. Cytotherapy 19, 555–569 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas, J. A. et al. Macrophage therapy for murine liver fibrosis recruits host effector cells improving fibrosis, regeneration and function. Hepatology 53, 2003–2015 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Newsome, P. N. et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and autologous CD133-positive stem-cell therapy in liver cirrhosis (REALISTIC): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 3, 25–36 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Younossi, Z. M. et al. Impact of liver transplantation on health-related quality of life. Liver Transpl. 6, 779–783 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Younossi, Z. M., Guyatt, G., Kiwi, M., Boparai, N. & King, D. Development of a disease specific questionnaire to measure health related quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 45, 295–300 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Le Tourneau, C., Lee, J. J. & Siu, L. L. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 708–720 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kullak-Ublick, G. A. et al. Drug-induced liver injury: recent advances in diagnosis and risk assessment. Gut 66, 1154–1164 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mehta, R. L. et al. Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit. Care 11, R31 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Henter, J. I. et al. HLH-2004: diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 48, 124–131 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tinegate, H. et al. Guideline on the investigation and management of acute transfusion reactions. Prepared by the BCSH Blood Transfusion Task Force. Br. J. Haematol. 159, 143–153 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Day, J., Patel, P., Parkes, J. & Rosenberg, W. Derivation and performance of standardized enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test thresholds for the detection and prognosis of liver fibrosis. J. Appl. Lab. Med. 3, 815–826 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Friedrich-Rust, M. et al. Comparison of ELF, FibroTest and FibroScan for the non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis. BMC Gastroenterol. 10, 103 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Karsdal, M. A. et al. Extracellular matrix remodeling: the common denominator in connective tissue diseases. Possibilities for evaluation and current understanding of the matrix as more than a passive architecture, but a key player in tissue failure. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 11, 70–92 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nielsen, M. J. et al. The neo-epitope specific PRO-C3 ELISA measures true formation of type III collagen associated with liver and muscle parameters. Am. J. Transl. Res. 5, 303–315 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Veidal, S. S. et al. Matrix metalloproteinase-9-mediated type III collagen degradation as a novel serological biochemical marker for liver fibrogenesis. Liver Int. 30, 1293–1304 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leeming, D. J. et al. Pro-C5, a marker of true type V collagen formation and fibrillation, correlates with portal hypertension in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 50, 584–592 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Karsdal, M. A. et al. Assessment of liver fibrosis progression and regression by a serological collagen turnover profile. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 316, G25–G31 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Huo, T. I. et al. Evaluation of the increase in model for end-stage liver disease (DeltaMELD) score over time as a prognostic predictor in patients with advanced cirrhosis: risk factor analysis and comparison with initial MELD and Child–Turcotte–Pugh score. J. Hepatol. 42, 826–832 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Barber, K. et al. Elective liver transplant list mortality: development of a United Kingdom end-stage liver disease score. Transplantation 92, 469–476 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Loria, A., Escheik, C., Gerber, N. L. & Younossi, Z. M. Quality of life in cirrhosis. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 15, 301 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Medical Research Council UK grant (Biomedical Catalyst Major Awards Committee; reference MR/M007588/1) to S.J. Forbes. We thank Z.M. Younossi (Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, Washington, DC, USA) for academic use of the CLDQ instrument and L.J. Fallowfield (Sussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), University of Sussex, UK) for advice about health-related quality of life assessment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Francesca Moroni, Benjamin J. Dwyer, Joanna K. Moore & Stuart J. Forbes

  2. Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Catriona Graham

  3. Tissues, Cells and Advanced Therapeutics, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS), Edinburgh, UK

    Chloe Pass, Laura Bailey, Lisa Ritchie, Donna Mitchell, Alison Glover, Audrey Laurie, Stuart Doig, Emily Hargreaves, Alasdair R. Fraser, Marc L. Turner, John D. M. Campbell & Neil W. A. McGowan

  4. Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, 12th Floor Tower Wing, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, UK

    Jacqueline Barry

  5. Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Peter C. Hayes & Jonathan A. Fallowfield

  6. Nordic Bioscience, Fibrosis Biology and Biomarkers, Herlev, Denmark

    Diana J. Leeming, Mette J. Nielsen & Kishwar Musa

Authors
  1. Francesca Moroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin J. Dwyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catriona Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chloe Pass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lisa Ritchie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Donna Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alison Glover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Audrey Laurie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Stuart Doig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Emily Hargreaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alasdair R. Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Marc L. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. John D. M. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Neil W. A. McGowan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Jacqueline Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Joanna K. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Peter C. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Diana J. Leeming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Mette J. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Kishwar Musa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Jonathan A. Fallowfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Stuart J. Forbes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and design of the work were carried out by S.J.F., C.P., L.R., L.B., D.M., A.L., S.D., E.H., A.R.F., M.L.T., J.D.M.C., N.W.A.M., J.B., J.K.M., P.C.H. and J.A.F. The acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data were performed by S.J.F., J.A.F., F.M., B.D., C.G., D.J.L., M.J.N. and K.M. Trial delivery and administration were carried out by F.M. and A.G. The original draft of the manuscript was written by F.M. The draft was reviewed and edited by all the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart J. Forbes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.A.F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galecto Biotech, Caldan Therapeutics, Gilde Healthcare, Arix Bioscience, Guidepoint and grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. S.J.F. has a grant from Syncona to develop macrophages as a therapy. D.J.L., K.M. and M.J.N. are full-time employees at Nordic Bioscience. D.J.L., M.K. and M.J.N. are among the original inventors and patent holders of C3M and PRO-C3. D.J.L. holds stock in Nordic Bioscience. P.C.H. is an advisor for AbbVie, BMS, Eisai Ltd, Falk, Ferring, Gilead, Gore, Janssen, Lundbeck, MSD, Norgine, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Roche, outside the submitted work.

Additional information

Peer review information Jennifer Sargent was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Representative flow cytometry analysis from macrophage manufacturing process.

Samples analysed using a BD FACS Canto II flow cytometer. a) Leukapheresis start material from a patient enrolled in the trial before and after CliniMACS prodigy selection of CD14+ cells. Samples gated on live, singlet, CD45+ cells as described in Fraser et al. Cytotherapy 2017;19:1113-24. Pre-selection, leukapheresis material contains a population of CD14-high mononuclear cells, which is enriched to >95% after CliniMACS Prodigy Selection. b) Enriched macrophages at day 0 and after 7 days of culture in Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor (M-CSF). Fewer than 3% of CD14+ cells express the macrophage marker 25F9, which has risen to more than 86% after 7 days culture. Samples gated on live, singlet, CD45+ cells as described in Fraser et al. Cytotherapy 2017;19:1113-24. The product meets the specification of >80% live CD45+ / 25F9+ cells with a delta mean fluorescence change in 25F9 expression of >5x versus the start material as discussed in Fraser et al. Cytotherapy 2017;19:1113-24. (Actual delta 25F9 mean fluorescence is 6.85 in this case).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Dose-limiting toxicity, by dose of cells infused, expressed as change from baseline over time.

DLT = dose-limiting toxicity. a) Fold-change in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT); DLT defined as >3-fold. b) Fold-change in serum total bilirubin; DLT defined as >3-fold. c) Fold-change in serum creatinine; DLT defined as ≥1.5-fold. d) Fold-change in haemoglobin; DLT defined as >−1.5-fold. One subject in 10^7 cell dose group developed anaemia at 360-day follow-up visit. This was confirmed, after the trial was completed, to be related to florid portal hypertensive gastropathy. e) Fold-change in platelets; DLT defined as >−2 fold. f) Total white cells count absolute numbers; DLT defined as <2.0 × 109/µL.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Selected safety-related serum cytokine levels, by dose of cell infused, expressed as change from baseline over time.

All cytokine measurements are in pg/mL. a) Changes in IL8 levels from baseline. b) Changes in IL1α from baseline—two subjects in dose group 108 cells had undetectable IL1α levels. c) Changes in IL6 from baseline. d) Changes in TNFα from baseline. e) Changes in IFNγ from baseline. f) Changes in IL10 changes baseline.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Change in MELD score from baseline over time and in the first month after cell infusion.

a) Individual participant data, classified by cell dose group (n = 3 per group), expressed as the delta-MELD from baseline (dotted black line) over time. Time-points indicate the time of macrophage infusion (black line; approximately 14 days from baseline) and study-specific follow-up visits in the trial. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at day-90 post-infusion. b) Individual participant data by cell dose expressed over initial safety and follow-up visits up to 30 days after infusion of macrophages (indicating MELD changes closer to infusion time-point).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Assessments of liver function, by dose of infused cells, expressed as changes from baseline over time.

a) Changes in United Kingdom End-Stage Liver Disease (UKELD) score from baseline (arbitrary units). b) Changes in serum albumin (g/dL) from baseline.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Transient elastography (Fibroscan®) results (kPa), by dose of infused cells, expressed as changes from baseline over time.

One-dimensional transient elastography was performed in fasted subjects using FibroScan® (Echosens, Paris, France) by fully trained and certified operators, using either an M or XL probe to obtain ten valid readings, with a success rate of at least 60% and IQR < 30% of the median result. Three results did not meet the manufacturer’s recommended validity criteria and were therefore removed (baseline measure for participant 004 and participant 005 and 90 days measure for participant 008).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Assessment of non-invasive serum liver fibrosis markers (individual Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test components), by dose of infused cells, expressed as changes from baseline over time.

a) Changes in serum hyaluronic acid (ng/mL) from baseline. b) Changes in serum procollagen III amino terminal peptide (PIIINP; ng/mL) from baseline. c) Changes in serum tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1; ng/mL) from baseline.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Measurement of health-related quality of life scores using the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) instrument, by dose of cells infused, expressed as change from baseline over time.

Measurement of health-related quality of life scores using the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) instrument, by dose of cells infused, expressed as change from baseline over time. CLDQ domains are assessed using seven-point scales, ranging from the worst (1) to the best (7) possible function. a) Changes in ‘Emotional’ domain score from baseline. b) Changes in ‘Worry’ domain score from baseline. Each line in each of the graphs represents data from an individual participant.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1 and original study protocol for phase 1 MATCH study.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Statistical source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

Statistical source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moroni, F., Dwyer, B.J., Graham, C. et al. Safety profile of autologous macrophage therapy for liver cirrhosis. Nat Med 25, 1560–1565 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0599-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0599-8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research