4.3 Article

Phase II Trial: Undifferentiated Versus Differentiated Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Transplantation in Egyptian Patients with HCV Induced Liver Cirrhosis

Journal

STEM CELL REVIEWS AND REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 972-981

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12015-011-9322-y

Keywords

MSCs; Transplantation; Liver cirrhosis; Differentiation

Funding

  1. Kasr El-Aini hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study was aimed to evaluate the effect of autologous transplantation of BM-derived undifferentiated and differentiated MSCs in cirrhotic patients following chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Twenty-five patients with Child C liver cirrhosis, MELD score > 12 were included. They were divided into 2 groups. Group I, the MSCs group (n = 15), this group was subdivided into two subgroups: Ia & Ib (undifferentiated and differentiated respectively). Group II (control group; n = 10) involved patients with cirrhotic liver under conventional supportive treatment. Ninety ml BM was aspirated from the iliac bone for separation of MSCs. Surface expression of CD271, CD29 and CD34 were analyzed using flowcytometry. Hepatogenesis was assessed by immunohistochemical expression of OV6, AFP and albumin. Finally approximately 1 million MSCs/Kg were suspended in saline and were placed in blood bag and injected slowly intravenously over 15 min at a rate of 5 drops/min in one session. Follow up of patients at 3 and 6 months postinfusion revealed partial improvement of liver function tests with elevation of prothrombin concentration and serum albumin levels, decline of elevated bilirubin and MELD score in MSCs group. Statistical comparisons between the two subgroups (group Ia & Ib) did not merit any significant difference regarding clinical and laboratory findings. In conclusion: Bone marrow MSCs transplantation either undifferentiated or differentiated can be used as a potential treatment for liver cirrhosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available