Evidence Hub

Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Implants for Chronic Motor Deficits After Traumatic Brain Injury: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial

Okonkwo DO, McAllister P, Achrol AS, Karasawa Y, Kawabori M, Cramer SC, Lai A, Kesari S et al.

Neurology, 2024

211 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Background and objectives: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is frequently characterized by chronic motor deficits. Therefore, this clinical trial assessed whether intracranial implantation of allogeneic modified mesenchymal stromal (SB623) cells can improve chronic motor deficits after TBI.

Methods: Post hoc analysis of the double-blind, randomized, prospective, surgical sham-controlled, phase 2, STEMTRA clinical trial (June 2016 and March 2019) with 48 weeks of follow-up was conducted. In this international, multicenter clinical trial, eligible participants had moderate-to-severe TBI, were ≥12 months postinjury, and had chronic motor deficits. Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to stereotactic surgical intracranial implantation of SB623 cells (2.5 × 106, 5.0 × 106, 10 × 106) or surgical sham-controlled procedure. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was significantly greater change from baseline of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale (FMMS) score, a measure of motor status, for the SB623 pooled vs control arm at 24 weeks.

Results: A total of 211 participants were screened, 148 were excluded, and 63 underwent randomization, of which 61 (97%; mean age, 34 [SD, 12] years; 43 men [70.5%]) completed the trial. Single participants in the SB623 2.5 × 106 and 5.0 × 106 cell dose groups discontinued before surgery. Safety and efficacy (modified intent-to-treat) were assessed in participants who underwent surgery (N = 61; SB623 = 46, controls = 15). The primary efficacy end…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 211 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free