Evidence Hub

Mesenchymal stem cell-derived neural progenitors in progressive MS: Two-year follow-up of a phase I study

Harris VK, Stark JW, Yang S, Zanker S, Tuddenham J, Sadiq SA

Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation, 2021

20 participants · 30 citations

Abstract

Objective: To determine the long-term safety and efficacy of repeated intrathecal (IT) administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cell-derived neural progenitors (MSC-NPs) in patients with progressive MS by evaluating subjects 2 years after treatment.

Methods: Twenty subjects were enrolled as part of a phase I, open-label single-arm study of 3 IT injections of MSC-NPs spaced 3 months apart. Subjects were evaluated for adverse events and disability outcomes including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW). Long-term evaluation was conducted 2 years after the third treatment. CSF was collected before and 3 months after treatment.

Results: Eighteen of the 20 study participants completed the full 2-year follow-up protocol. There were no long-term adverse events associated with repeated IT-MSC-NP treatment. Seven subjects showed sustained improvement in EDSS after 2 years, although the degree of improvement was not maintained in 5 of the subjects. Three of the 10 ambulatory subjects showed sustained improvement in the T25FW after 2 years. CSF biomarker analysis revealed a decrease in C-C motif chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2) and an increase in interleukin 8, hepatocyte growth factor, and C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12 (CXCL12) after treatment.

Conclusions: Safety and efficacy of repeated IT-MSC-NP treatment was sustained for 2 years; however, the degree of disability reversal was not sustained in a subset of patients. CSF biomarkers altered…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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: 20 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