Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells may be a viable treatment modality in cerebral palsy
Osman Boyalı,Serdar Kabatas,Erdinç Civelek,Omer Ozdemir,Yeliz Bahar-Ozdemir,Necati Kaplan,Eyüp Can Savrunlu,Erdal Karaöz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i9.1585
2024-03-26
World Journal of Clinical Cases
Abstract:BACKGROUND Cerebral palsy (CP) describes a group of disorders affecting movement, balance, and posture. Disturbances in motor functions constitute the main body of CP symptoms. These symptoms surface in early childhood and patients are affected for the rest of their lives. Currently, treatment involves various pharmacotherapies for different types of CP, including antiepileptics for epilepsy and Botox A for focal spasticity. However, none of these methods can provide full symptom relief. This has prompted researchers to look for new treatment modalities, one of which is mesenchymal stem cell therapy (MSCT). Despite being a promising tool and offering a wide array of possibilities, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) still need to be investigated for their efficacy and safety. AIM To analyze the efficacy and safety of MSCT in CP patients. METHODS Our sample consists of four CP patients who cannot stand or walk without external support. All of these cases received allogeneic MSCT six times as 1 × 106/kg intrathecally, intravenously, and intramuscularly using umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSC). We monitored and assessed the patients pre- and post-treatment using the Wee Functional Independence Measure (WeeFIM), Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), and Manual Ability Classification Scale (MACS) instruments. We utilized the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) to measure spasticity. RESULTS We found significant improvements in MAS scores after the intervention on both sides. Two months: Right χ 2 = 4000, P = 0.046, left χ 2 = 4000, P = 0.046; four months: Right χ 2 = 4000, P = 0.046, left χ 2 = 4000, P = 0.046; 12 months: Right χ 2 = 4000, P = 0.046, left χ 2 = 4000, P = 0.046. However, there was no significant difference in motor functions based on WeeFIM results (P > 0.05). GMFCS and MACS scores differed significantly at 12 months after the intervention (P = 0.046, P = 0.046). Finally, there was no significant change in cognitive functions (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION In light of our findings, we believe that UC-MSC therapy has a positive effect on spasticity, and it partially improves motor functions.
medicine, general & internal