Evidence Hub

Transplantation of Human Neural Progenitor Cells (NPC) into Putamina of Parkinsonian Patients: A Case Series Study, Safety and Efficacy Four Years after Surgery

I. Madrazo, O. Kopyov, M. Ávila-Rodríguez, F. Ostrosky, H. Carrasco, A. Kopyov, A. Avendano-estrada, F. Jiménez et al.

Cell Transplantation, 2018

7 participants · 49 citations

Abstract

Individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) suffer from motor and mental disturbances due to degeneration of dopaminergic and non-dopaminergic neuronal systems. Although they provide temporary symptom relief, current treatments fail to control motor and non-motor alterations or to arrest disease progression. Aiming to explore safety and possible motor and neuropsychological benefits of a novel strategy to improve the PD condition, a case series study was designed for brain grafting of human neural progenitor cells (NPCs) to a group of eight patients with moderate PD. A NPC line, expressing Oct-4 and Sox-2, was manufactured and characterized. Using stereotactic surgery, NPC suspensions were bilaterally injected into patients’ dorsal putamina. Cyclosporine A was given for 10 days prior to surgery and continued for 1 month thereafter. Neurological, neuropsychological, and brain imaging evaluations were performed pre-operatively, 1, 2, and 4 years post-surgery. Seven of eight patients have completed 4-year follow-up. The procedure proved to be safe, with no immune responses against the transplant, and no adverse effects. One year after cell grafting, all but one of the seven patients completing the study showed various degrees of motor improvement, and five of them showed better response to medication. PET imaging showed a trend toward enhanced midbrain dopaminergic activity. By their 4-year evaluation, improvements somewhat decreased but remained better than at baseline.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 7 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