Evidence Hub

Intravenous infusion of auto serum-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells in spinal cord injury patients: 13 case series

O. Honmou, T. Yamashita, Tomonori Morita, Tsutomu Oshigiri, Ryosuke Hirota, S. Iyama, J. Kato, Yuichi Sasaki et al.

Clinical neurology and neurosurgery (Dutch-Flemish ed. Print), 2021

13 participants · 78 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although spinal cord injury (SCI) is a major cause of disability, current therapeutic options remain limited. Recent progress in cellular therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has provided improved function in animal models of SCI. We investigated the safety and feasibility of intravenous infusion of MSCs for SCI patients and assessed functional status after MSC infusion.

METHODS

In this phase 2 study of intravenous infusion of autologous MSCs cultured in auto-serum, a single infusion of MSCs under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) production was delivered in 13 SCI patients. In addition to assessing feasibility and safety, neurological function was assessed using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA), International Standards for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord (ISCSCI-92). Ability of daily living was assessed using Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM-III). The study protocol was based on advice provided by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in Japan. The trial was registered with the Japan Medical Association (JMA-IIA00154).

RESULTS

No serious adverse events were associated with MSC injection. There was neurologic improvement based on ASIA grade in 12 of the 13 patients at six months post-MSC infusion. Five of six patients classified as ASIA A prior to MSC infusion improved to ASIA B (3/6) or ASIA C (2/6), two ASIA B patients improved to ASIA C (1/2) or ASIA D (1/2), five ASIA C patients…

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: 13 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