Cytotherapy · 2024
Safety and potential efficacy of expanded mesenchymal stromal cells of bone marrow and umbilical cord origins in patients with chronic spinal cord injuries: a phase I/II study.
СтатьяКлиническое исследование II фазыКлиническое исследование I фазыРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Awidi Abdalla, Al Shudifat Abdulrahman, El Adwan Nael, Alqudah Mahmoud, Jamali Fatima, Nazer Fathy, Sroji Halla, Ahmad Hady, Al-Quzaa Nahla, Jafar Hanan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AIMS: Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects patients' physical, psychological, and social well-being. Presently, treatment modalities for chronic SCI have restricted clinical effectiveness. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) demonstrate promise in addressing nervous tissue damage. This single-center, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intraoperative perilesional administration of expanded autologous bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMMSCs), followed by monthly intrathecal injections, in comparison to monthly intrathecal administration of expanded allogeneic umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UCMSCs) for individuals with chronic SCI.
METHODS: Twenty participants, who had a minimum of 1 year of SCI duration, were enrolled. Each participant in Group A received perilesional BMMSCs, followed by monthly intrathecal BMMSCs for three injections, while Group B received monthly intrathecal UCMSCs for three injections. Safety and efficacy were evaluated using the American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) score for at least 1 year post the final injection. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: Group A comprised 11 participants, while Group B included 9. The mean follow-up duration was 22.65 months. Mild short-term adverse events encompassed headaches and back pain, with no instances of long-term adverse events. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in total ASIA scores, with Group A displaying more pronounced motor improvements.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that perilesional administration of expanded autologous BMMSCs, followed by monthly intrathecal BMMSCs for three injections, or monthly intrathecal UCMSCs for three injections appear to be safe and hold promise for individuals with chronic SCI. Nonetheless, larger-scale clinical trials are imperative to validate these observations.
METHODS: Twenty participants, who had a minimum of 1 year of SCI duration, were enrolled. Each participant in Group A received perilesional BMMSCs, followed by monthly intrathecal BMMSCs for three injections, while Group B received monthly intrathecal UCMSCs for three injections. Safety and efficacy were evaluated using the American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) score for at least 1 year post the final injection. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: Group A comprised 11 participants, while Group B included 9. The mean follow-up duration was 22.65 months. Mild short-term adverse events encompassed headaches and back pain, with no instances of long-term adverse events. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in total ASIA scores, with Group A displaying more pronounced motor improvements.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that perilesional administration of expanded autologous BMMSCs, followed by monthly intrathecal BMMSCs for three injections, or monthly intrathecal UCMSCs for three injections appear to be safe and hold promise for individuals with chronic SCI. Nonetheless, larger-scale clinical trials are imperative to validate these observations.